From: Joseph Bast Mon 6/19/2017 6:20:53 PM NASA still lies about climate change "consensus" Why Scientists Disagree Second Edition with covers.pdf Sent: Subject: Thomas Wysmuller [mailto:tom@colderside.com] Mr. President: As a former Apollo era NASA employee, I am stunningly embarrassed that this shameful material is still "up" on the NASA website: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ But just taking it down is not my preferred solution, as this drivel has been pounded into the public brain for the last few years. Each of the items should clearly be labeled as "FALSE," with a succinct explanation along the lines drawn by Heartland's excellent "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" - examples on Pages 13, 15, and 17 of the PDF that I've attached. More is needed than just making the offensive and scientifically vapid material disappear. A concerted and technically accurate re-education process is needed here. The NASA webpage referred to above is just the tip of the (non-melting) iceberg! This one HAS to melt, and much sooner than later! It goes without saying that we are more than a dozen years behind this particular power curve! NASA needs new scientifically literate leadership .... BEST to you, and thanks for what you are doing to "Make America Great Again!!!" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000001-00001 Tom SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 EPA, No. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 w" ED001389_00000002-ood1 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Praise for past reports by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Climate Change Reconsidered is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary compilation of technical papers covering a very large variety of important topics that will be appreciated by all who desire reliable, up-to-date information. Larry Bell, endowed professor and director Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture at the University of Houston Many will treat Climate Change Reconsidered as a highly authoritative source of reference. It is in particular a standing rebuke to all those alarmists who deny the existence of hard science supporting the sceptical case .... Given the increasing realisation that climate mitigation efforts are creating an economic crisis, and increasing popular scepticism about the alannist scenario, this is a timely publication, and a key resource for all ofus who are arguing for common sense. Roger Helmer Member of the European Parliament The 2011 edition of Climate Change Reconsidered is a quite extraordinary achievement. It should put to rest once and for all any notion that "the science is settled" on the subject of global warming, or that humanity and our planet face an imminent manmade climate change disaster. Paul Driessen Author, Eco-Imperialism I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication ofits latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change. Kumar Raina Former Deputy Director General Geological Survey oflndia SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00003 I've been waiting for this book for twenty years. It was a long wait, but I'm not disappointed. Climate Change Reconsidered is a tour de force. E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Highly informative, Climate Change Reconsidered ought to be required reading for scientists, journalists, policymakers, teachers, and students. It is an eye-opening read for everyone else (concerned citizens, taxpayers, etc.). William Mellberg Author, Moon Missions [T]here are several chapters in the NIPCC report that are substantially more thorough and comprehensive than the IPCC treatment, including 5 (Solar variability and climate cycles), 7 (Biological effects of carbon dioxide enrichment), 8 (Species extinction) and 9 (Human health effects). Further, the NIPCC's regional approach to analyzing extreme events and historical and paleo records of temperature, rainfall, streamflow, glaciers, sea ice, and sea-level rise is commendable and frankly more infonnative than the global analyses provided by the IPCC. Dr. Judith Curry, professor and chair School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology NIP CC' s CCR-II report should open the eyes of world leaders who have fallen prey to the scandalous climate dictates by the IPCC. People are already suffering the consequences of sub-prime financial instruments. Let them not suffer more from IPCC's sub-prime climate science and models. That is the stark message of the NIPCC's CCR-II report. M.I. Bhat, fonnerly professor and head Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Kashmir, India Climate Change Reconsidered is a comprehensive, authoritative, and definitive reply to the IPCC reports. Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen Christchurch, New Zealand SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00004 I was glad to see that a new report was coming from the NIPCC. The work of this group of scientists to present the evidence for natural climate warming and climate change is an essential counter-balance to the biased reporting of the IPCC. They have brought to focus a range of peer-reviewed publications showing that natural forces have in the past and continue today to dominate the climate signal. Considering the recent evidence that climate models have failed to predict the flattening of the global temperature curve, and that global warming seems to have ended some 15 years ago, the work of the NIPCC is particularly important. Ian Clark, professor, Department of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa, Canada Library shelves are cluttered with books on global warming. The problem is identifying which ones are worth reading. The NIPCC's CCR-II report is one of these. Its coverage of the topic is comprehensive without being superficial. It sorts through conflicting claims made by scientists and highlights mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide increase is lower than climate models have until now assumed. Chris de Freitas, School of Environment The University of Auckland, New Zealand The CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global wanning and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc. There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies. S. JeevanandaReddy Former Chief Technical Advisor United Nations World Meteorological Organization The claim by the UN IPCC that "global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls" does NOT agree with observational facts, and must hence be discarded as a serious disinformation. This is well taken in the CCR-II report. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Stockholm University, Sweden SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00005 Climate Change Reconsidered is simply the most comprehensive documentation of the case against climate alarmism ever produced. Basing policy on the scientifically incomplete and internally inconsistent reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no longer controversial Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is absolutely foolhardy, and anyone doing so is risking humiliation. It is a must-read for anyone who is accountable to the public, and it needs to be taken very, very seriously. Patrick J. Michaels, Director Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute CCR-II provides scientists, policy makers and other interested parties information related to the current state ofknowledge in atmospheric studies. Rather than coming from a pre-detennined politicized position that is typical of the IPCC, the NIPCC constrains itself to the scientific process so as to provide objective information. If we (scientists) are honest, we understand that the study of atmospheric processes/dynamics is in its infancy. Consequently, the work of the NIPCC and its most recent report is very important. It is time to move away from politicized science back to science this is what NIPCC is demonstrating by example. Bruce Borders, professor of Forest Biometrics Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00006 Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus Craig D. ldso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer NIPCC NONGOVERNMENTAL INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATECHANGE SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00007 Originally published in 2015 Second edition copyright© 2016 The Heartland Institute Published for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) by The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 phone 312/3 77-4000 www.heartland.org All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form. Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors. Nothing in this book should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heartland Institute or as an attempt to influence pending legislation. Additional copies of this book are available from The Heartland Institute for the following prices: 1-10 copies 11-50 copies 51-100 copies 101 or more $6.95 per $5.95 per $4.95 per $3.95 per copy copy copy copy Printed in the United States of America ISBN-13 978-1-934791-59-2 ISBN-IO 1-934791-59-8 Manufactured in the United States of America SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00008 Dedicated to the memory of our good friend, Robert Carter, who contributed so much to the writing of this book, and who passed away shortly after the first edition was released. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00009 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Preface to the Second Edition ................. xv Prefac eto the Fi s tEdi t 01 ................... xvi i Key Fi rdi rgs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi x Introduction ................................. 1 Chapter 1. No Consensus 7 ..................... Chapter 2. Why Scientists Disagree ............. 31 Chapter 3 Scientific Method vs. Political Science ... 55 Chapter 4. Flawed Projections ................. 61 Chapter 5. False Postulates ................... 75 Chapter 6. Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence Chapter 7. Policy Implications ................ .... 87 101 Cone I s i o ............................... 105 About the Authors .......................... 108 About NIPCC 109 ............................. About The Heartland Institute ................. 110 ix SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00011 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Foreword President Barack Obama and his followers have repeatedly declared that climate change is "the greatest threat facing mankind." This, while ISIS is beheading innocent people, displacing millions from their homeland, and engaging in global acts of mass murder. Ifit weren't so scary, it would be laughable. These statements should ring alarm bells in the minds of all Americans. They show how out of touch this president and the movement he leads are with reality and the American public. Marita Noon, executive The global warming movement is the most director, Citizen's Alliance extensive and most expensive public relations for Responsible Energy campaign in the history of the world. Nearly every government agency in the United States and many more around the world are promoting the manmade-climate-change-scare scenario. An entire generation has been brought up hearing and reading about it. Yet public concern about it peaked in 2000 and today, people are no more worried about it than they were 26 years ago when Gallup began polling this issue. They've seen through the rhetoric and exaggerations. They remember, even if journalists and politicians seem not to, that past sky-is-falling predictions failed to come true, and forecasts of a dire climate catastrophe are just as unlikely to come true. Surveys show the American people put climate change at the very xi SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00013 xii WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING bottom of lists of problems they want the government to address. But it is a very important issue nonetheless for anyone concerned about individual freedom and protecting our way oflife. The alarmist view, advocated by the Obama administration and environmental extremists, influences virtually every public policy, including the kind oflight bulbs we may purchase, the type of cars we may be able to drive, where we live, and the types of jobs we may create or are available for us or our children to perform. The most consequential policy decisions coming out of Washington today are predicated on the narrative that climate change is a crisis of catastrophic proportion, that it is caused by humans using fossil fuels, and that ending the use ofhydrocarbons will save us from this pending disaster. It is imperative that the topic gets a full debate. Instead, those who want to "fundamentally transform America," as Obama promised, are seeking to silence and discredit anyone who dares to speak up and question their assertions. They claim the science is "settled." But true science is never "settled," and true scientists are always eager to ask and answer questions. This is plainly the case regarding climate change, as this book, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, makes clear. Sweeping regulations like the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan - which will totally transform the way electricity is generated, distributed, and used, and will dramatically increase costs for industry and individuals - are justified by their supporters because they are purported to mitigate climate change.Yet even their proponents admit such laws will have a minuscule impact on global greenhouse gas emissions and an imperceptible impact on the world's climate, well below the range of natural variability and the margin of error of our methods of measuring the planet's temperature. This begs the question: "Why bother?" Why impose regulations that will cost hundreds ofbillions of dollars a year, destroy millions of jobs, and condemn millions of people to lives of grinding poverty, if there is virtually no beneficial impact on Earth's climate? Many people support the regulations out of pure naivete: They've been told over and over again that "97 percent of scientists" believe global warming is a crisis and so sacrifices, even huge sacrifices, are necessary to stop it. The leaders of the global warming movement surely know better. They know most scientists do not endorse their simplistic and alarmist narrative of a complex scientific question. They back the regulations despite, not because of, what scientists SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00014 FOREWORD xiii believe. They support the Clean Power Plan because it will give them more power, more control, and more profit. The alarmist view of global warming is at the core of renewable energy mandates and massive subsidies for solar and wind companies. Strangely, as more and more of these boondoggles have been exposed for what they are - massive transfers of wealth from the general public to a small politically connected cabal of climate profiteers- the "act now!" cries have become louder and more insistent, perhaps hoping to drown out the news of the failures. Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, we are told not to look behind the curtain, lest we discover what a total fraud the global warming movement truly is. Today, in 2016, those who dare to look behind the curtain are being threatened by the U.S. Department of Justice and a group of attorneys general with legal action under a law passed in 1970 to combat organized crime. Sadly, such threats are taking a toll as some who've spoken freely now have fallen silent, fearing for their livelihoods and even their safety and that of their families. Yes, this is happening in America, where freedom of speech once was considered a sacred right. This is why scientific debate over the causes and consequences of climate change is so vitally important and must not be stifled. The fact of the matter is, despite the oft-stated claim that "97 percent of scientists agree," scientists actually disagree, profoundly and on many points. Their disagreements are on display in almost countless articles in scientific journals and books. Before public policy is set in cement, irreversibly charting our course for decades, the voices of real scientists need to be heard. Thankfully, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming presents the side in the global warming debate that has been demonized by environmental advocacy groups, censored by the mainstream media, and threatened by politicians and their allies in government agencies. The authors carefully document the shortcomings of studies claiming to find a "scientific consensus" and present evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion, that a full-throated debate is continuing over the human role in climate change and whether anything can or should be done to reduce our role. Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming is written by three highly regarded climate scientists, is carefully documented, and offers an easy-to-read format featuring summary points for the casual reader and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00015 xiv WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING thorough explanations for the more inquisitive. All this, plus the importance of the subject it addresses, makes it a must-read for concerned citizens, truth-seeking policymakers, and educators. Energy is a pivotal issue of utmost priority, and it is tightly woven into the debate underway over global warming. Before you decide where you stand, be sure you understand the issue, not just believe what you've been told is true. Read Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. - Marita Noon, executive director, Citizen's Alliance for Responsible Energy May 2016 About Marita Noon Marita Noon is executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and its companion educational organization, the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policymakers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Noon is also a columnist for Breitbart.com and a regular contributor to many online commentary sites including The American Spectator, RedState.com, Canada Free Press, and NetRight Daily. Noon's twentieth book, Energy Freedom, is her first in the current affairs genre. Readers of her previous books, including best sellers Wired That Way and Communication Plus, know her as Marita Littauer. Prior to her work in energy, Noon was known as a motivational speaker and author. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00016 Preface to the Second Edition Just a few weeks after the release of the first edition of this book, which took place in December 2015 in Paris during the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), one of the coauthors, Robert M. Carter, passed away unexpectedly. He was 74 years old. The authors and editors of this book are still, in May 2016, in shock over the loss of a friend, mentor, and source of inspiration. Dr. Carter attended the Paris release of the first edition of this book, and upon his arrival back home in Australia was hard at work on the third and final volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered II series. We could hardly believe the news when it arrived, in a series of late-night emails from his friends and family. We still can hardly believe he is gone. This small book is based on Chapter 2 of the larger work Dr. Carter and others were working to finish. It focuses, as its title suggests, on the question of whether a "scientific consensus" exists on the causes and consequences of climate change. It discusses the role of consensus in science and reviews surveys and other evidence showing agreement and lack of agreement among climate scientists. It explains why scientists often disagree (not just on climate change) and summarizes the physical and biological sciences findings of the first two volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered II series, released in 2013 and 2014. The summary relies significantly on the summaries for policymakers of those two volumes written mainly by Dr. Carter. The first edition was quite a success. More than 50,000 copies of the xv SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00017 xvi WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING book were sold or given away in only five months to elected officials, civic and business leaders, scientists, and other opinion leaders. The response from the science community and experts on climate change has been overwhelmingly positive. To meet demand for more copies, we are proud to produce this second revised edition. Changes in this edition include the new foreword by Marita Noon, an extremely talented and highly respected voice in the debate over energy policy and climate change. Some of the discussion in Chapter 1 has been revised and expanded thanks to feedback from readers. Some graphs have been added, mostly taken from testimony presented by Dr. John Christy, distinguished professor of atmospheric science, Alabama's state climatologist, and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, on February 2, 2016 to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. Donors to The Heartland Institute are making it possible for this new edition to be sent to large numbers of teachers, university professors, and the CEOs of major companies in the United States. We greatly appreciate their financial support. This book stands on its own merits, but the political climate of the day requires that we report no corporate funds were raised or used to support the writing, editing, or publication of this book or the larger volumes from which it was derived. For more information about the publisher, The Heartland Institute, please visit its website at www.heartland.org, and be sure to read the "reply to critics" page linked on the homepage. Diane Carol Bast Executive Editor The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00018 Preface to the First Edition The global warming debate is one of the most consequential public policy debates taking place in the world today. Billions of dollars have been spent in the name of preventing global warming or mitigating the human impact on Earth's climate. Governments are negotiating treaties that would require trillions of dollars more to be spent in the years ahead. A frequent claim in the debate is that a "consensus" or even "overwhelming consensus" of scientists embrace the more alarming end of the spectrum of scientific projections of future climate change. Politicians including President Barack Obama and government agencies including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) claim "97 percent of scientists agree" that climate change is both man-made and dangerous. As the authors of this book explain, the claim of"scientific consensus" on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit. There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on any of the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate. On the contrary, there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated. Other authors have refuted the claim of a "scientific consensus" about global warming. This book is different in that it comprehensively and specifically rebuts the surveys and studies used to support claims of a consensus. It then summarizes evidence showing disagreement, identifies four reasons why scientists disagree about global warming, and then provides a detailed survey of the physical science of global warming based xvii SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00019 xviii WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUTGLOBALWARMING on the authors' previous work. This book is based on a chapter in a forthcoming much larger examination of the climate change debate to be titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Benefits and Costs of Fossil Fuels. That volume will finish the three-volume Climate Change Reconsidered II series, totaling some 3,000 pages and reporting the findings of more than 4,000 peer-reviewed articles on climate change. This book and the larger volume that will follow it are produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or government agency. It also receives no corporate funding for its activities. NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that dangerous humanrelated global warming is a problem in need of a UN solution. This volume, like past NIPCC reports, is edited and published by the staff of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and educational organization newly relocated from Chicago to suburban Arlington Heights, Illinois. The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Joseph L. Bast and Diane C. Bast, Heartland's seemingly tireless editing duo, for their help in getting this chapter ready for release before the rest of the volume in which it will eventually appear. Craig D. ldso, Ph.D. Chairman Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (USA) Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Emeritus Fellow Institute of Public Affairs (Australia) 5. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Chairman Science and Environmental Policy Project (USA) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00020 Key Findings Key findings of this book include the following: No Consensus • The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. • The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a "scientific consensus" in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading. • There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate. • Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Why Scientists Disagree • Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields of study. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. • Fundamental uncertainties anse from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. xix SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00021 xx WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING • IPCC, created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. • Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism,grant-seeking,political views, and confirmation bias. Scientific Method vs. Political Science • The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. • The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability. • In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis's favor. Flawed Projections • IPCC and virtually all the governments of the world depend on global climate models (GCMs) to forecast the effects of human-related greenhouse gas emissions on the climate. • GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly modeled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter to their mission to find a human influence on climate. • NIPCC estimates a doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7 wm- 2 in the lower atmosphere, for about~ 1°C of prim afacie warming. • Four specific forecasts made by GCMs have been falsified by real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has been no global warming for some 18 years. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00022 KEY FINDINGS xxi False Postulates • Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability. • The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks. • Historically, increases in atmospheric CO 2 followed increases m temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO 2 levels could not have forced temperatures to rise. • Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming. In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO 2 in the atmosphere. • A warming of 2°C or more during the twenty-first century would probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change. Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence • Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at "unnatural" rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact on the climate. • Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability - in some places rising and in others falling. • The link between warming and drought is weak, and by some measures drought decreased over the twentieth century. Changes in the hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a closer correlation with multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do with global temperature. • No convincing relationship has been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00023 xxii WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Meteorological science suggests just the opposite: A warmer world will see milder weather patterns. • No evidence exists that current changes in Arctic permafrost are other than natural or are likely to cause a climate catastrophe by releasing methane into the atmosphere. Policy Implications • Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest. • Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography, geology, weather, and culture. • Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to turn their attention to the real problems their people and their planet face. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00024 Introduction Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that "97 percent of scientists agree" that climate change is man-made and dangerous. This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science. As the size of recent reports by the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its skeptical counterpart, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate (NIPCC) suggest, climate science is a complex and highly technical subject, making simplistic claims about what "all" or "most" scientists believe necessarily misleading. Regrettably, this hasn't prevented various politicians and activists from proclaiming a "scientific consensus" or even "overwhelming scientific consensus" that human activities are responsible for observed climate changes in recent decades and could have "catastrophic" effects in the future. The claim that "97 percent of scientists agree" appears on the websites of government agencies such as the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, 2015) and even respected scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, n.d.), yet such claims are either false or meaningless. Chapter 1 debunks surveys and abstract-counting exercises that allege to have found a "scientific consensus" in favor of the man-made global warming hypothesis and reports surveys that found no consensus on the most important issues in the debate. Chapter 2 explains why scientists disagree, finding the sources of disagreement in the interdisciplinary character of the issue, fundamental uncertainties concerning climate 1 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00025 2 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING science, the failure of IPCC to be an independent and reliable source of research on the subject, and bias among researchers. Chapter 3 explains the scientific method and contrasts it with the methodology used by IPCC and appeals to the "precautionary principle." Chapter 4 describes flaws in how IPCC uses global climate models to make projections about present and future climate changes and reports the findings of superior models that foresee much less global warming and even cooling. Chapter 5 critiques five postulates or assumptions that underlie IPCC's work, and Chapter 6 critiques five key pieces of circumstantial evidence relied on by IPCC. Chapter 7 reports the policy implications of these findings, and a brief summary and conclusion end this book. Chapters 1 and 2 are based on previously published work by Joseph Bast (Bast, 2010, 2012, 2013; Bast and Spencer, 2014) that has been revised for this publication. Chapters 3 to 7 are based on the Summary for Policymakers of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, an earlier volume in the same series as the present book produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Idso, Carter, and Singer, 2014). Although brief, this summary of climate science is based on an exhaustive review of the scientific literature. Lead authors Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer worked with a team of some 50 scientists to produce a 1,200-page report that is comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method. It mirrors and rebuts IPCC' s Working Group 1 and Working Group 2 contributions to IPCC' s 2014 Fifth Assessment Report, or AR5 (IPCC, 2014). Like IPCC reports, NIPCC reports cite thousands of articles appearing in peer-reviewed science journals relevant to the subject of human-induced climate change. NIPCC authors paid special attention to research that was either overlooked by IPCC or contains data, discussion, or implications arguing against IPCC's claim that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. Most notably, NIPCC's authors say IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming likely to occur if the concentration of atmospheric CO 2 were to double, and such warming as occurs is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being. The principal findings from CCR-II: Physical Science are summarized in Figure 1. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00026 INTRODUCTION 3 Figure 1 Summary of NIPCC's Findings on Physical Science • Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases. • Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO 2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3°C to 1.1°C, almost 50 percent of which must already have occurred. • A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis. • Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO 2 could cause warming ofup to 6°C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 19 years of stable temperature. • Over recent geological time, Earth's temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability. • Though a future warming of 2°C would cause geographically varied ecological responses, no evidence exists that those changes would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being. • At the current level of ~400 ppm we still live in a CO 2 -starved world. Atmospheric levels 15 times greater existed during the Cambrian Period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects. • The overall warming since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age modulated by natural multidecadal cycles driven by ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar variations at the de Vries (~208 year) and Gleissberg (~80 year) and shorter periodicities. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00027 4 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING • Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 18 years despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO 2 , which represents 34 percent of all extra CO 2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. • No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related CO 2 emissions. The parallelism of temperature and CO 2 increase between about 1980 and 2000 AD could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate causation. • The causes ofhistoric global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years. • Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO 2 emissions. Source: Idso, C.D., Carter, R.M., Singer, S.F. 2013. Executive Summary, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. References AAAS, n.d. What we know. American Academy for the Advancement of Science. Website. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. Bast, J.L. 2010. Analysis: New international survey of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute. Website. https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/analysis-new-international-surveyclimate-scientists. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. Bast, J.L. 2012. The myth of the 98%. Heartland Policy Brief Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute (October 1). Bast, J.L. 2013. AMS survey shows no consensus on global warming. Heartland Policy Brief Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute (November 28). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00028 INTRODUCTION 5 Bast, J.L and Spencer, R. 2014. The myth of the climate change '97%.' The Wall Street Journal (May 26). Idso, C.D, Carter, R.M., and Singer, S.F. (Eds.) 2013. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. IPCC 2014. Pachauri, R. and Meyer, L. (Eds). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. NASA, 2015. Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is wanning. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Website. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00029 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 1 No Consensus Key findings of this chapter include the following: • The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. • The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a "scientific consensus" in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading. • There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate. • Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Why Debate Consensus? Environmental activists and their allies in the media often characterize climate science as an "overwhelming consensus" in favor of a single view 7 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00031 8 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING that is sometimes challenged by a tiny minority of scientists funded by the fossil fuel industry to "sow doubt" or otherwise emphasize the absence of certainty on key aspects of the debate (Hoggan and Littlemore, 2009; Oreskes and Conway, 2010; Mann, 2012; Prothero, 2013). This popular narrative grossly over-simplifies the issue while libeling scientists who question the alleged consensus (Cook, 2014). This chapter reveals scientists do, in fact, disagree on the causes and consequences of climate change. In May 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists tell us this is urgent," he added (Kerry, 2014). Three days earlier, President Obama tweeted that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" (Obama, 2014). What is the basis of these claims? The most influential statement of this alleged consensus appears in the Summary for Policymakers of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "It is extremely likely (95%+ certainty) that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period" (IPCC, 2013, p. 17). In a "synthesis report" produced the following year, IPCC went further, claiming "Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks" (IPCC, 2014, p. 8). In that same report, IPCC expresses skepticism that even reducing emissions will make a difference: "Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases" (p. 16). The media uncritically reported IPCC's claims with headlines such as "New Climate Change Report Wams of Dire Consequences" (Howard, 2014) and "Panel's Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00032 No CONSENSUS 9 (Gillis, 2014). What evidence is there for a "scientific consensus" on the causes and consequences of climate change? What do scientists really say? Any inquiry along these lines must begin by questioning the legitimacy of the question. Science does not advance by consensus or a show of hands. Disagreement is the rule and consensus is the exception in most academic disciplines. This is because science is a process leading to ever-greater certainty, necessarily implying that what is accepted as true today will likely not be accepted as true tomorrow. As Albert Einstein famously once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" (Einstein, 1996). Still, claims of a "scientific consensus" cloud the current debate on climate change. Many people, scientists included, refuse to believe scientists and other experts, even scholars eminent in the field, simply because they are said to represent minority views in the science community. So what do the surveys and studies reveal? References Cook, R. 2014. Merchants of smear. Heartland Policy Brief (September). Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. Einstein, A. 1996. Quoted in A. Calaprice, The Quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 224. Gillis, J. 2014. Panel's warning on climate risk: Worst is yet to come. The New York Times (March 31 ). Hoggan, J. and Littlemore, R. 2009. Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Vancouver, BC Canada: Greystone Books. Howard, B.C. 2014. IPCC highlights risks of global warming and closing window ofopportunity. National Geographic (March 31 ). IPCC 2013. Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P.M. (Eds.) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. IPCC 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00033 10 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pachauri, R. and Meyer, L. (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland. Kerry, J. 2014. Remarks at Boston College's 138th commencement ceremony (May 19). http:/ /www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/05/226291.htm. Mann, M.E. 2012. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Obama, B. 2014. Twitter. https:/ /twitter.com/barackobama/status/3 3 50894 77296988160. Oreskes, N. and Conway, E.M. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: NY: Bloomsbury Press. Prothero, D.R. 2013. Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Flawed Surveys Claims of a "scientific consensus" on the causes and consequences of climate change rely on a handful of essays reporting the results of surveys or efforts to count the number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals that appear to endorse or reject the positions ofIPCC. NASA on its website cites four sources supporting its claim that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more ofactively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities" (NASA, 2015). As this section reveals, these surveys and abstract-counting exercises are deeply flawed and do not support the claims of those who cite them. Oreskes,2004 The most frequently cited source for a "consensus of scientists" is a 2004 essay for the journal Science written by a socialist historian named Naomi Oreskes (Oreskes, 2004). Oreskes reported examining abstracts from 928 papers reported by the Institute for Scientific Information database published in scientific journals from 1993 and 2003, using the keywords SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00034 No CONSENSUS 11 "global climate change." Although not a scientist, she concluded 7 5 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported IPCC' s view that human activities were responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented. Oreskes' essay appeared in a "peer-reviewed scientific journal," as NASA reported, but the essay itself was not peer-reviewed. It was an opinion essay and the editors hadn't bothered asking to see her database. This opinion essay became the basis of a book, Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes and Conway, 2010 ), and then an academic career built on claiming that global warming "deniers" are a tiny minority within the scientific community, and then even a movie based on her book released in 2015. Her 2004 claims were repeated in former Vice President Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and in his book with the same title (Gore, 2006). It is now widely agreed Oreskes did not distinguish between articles that acknowledged or assumed some human impact on climate, however small, and articles that supported IPCC's more specific claim that human emissions are responsible for more than 50 percent of the global warming observed during the past 50 years. The abstracts often are silent on the matter, and Oreskes apparently made no effort to go beyond those abstracts. Her definition of consensus also is silent on whether man-made climate change is dangerous or benign, a rather important point in the debate. Oreskes' literature review inexplicably overlooked hundreds of articles by prominent global warming skeptics including John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, and Patrick Michaels. More than 1,350 such articles (including articles published after Oreskes' study was completed) are now identified in an online bibliography (Popular Technology.net, 2014). Oreskes' methodology was flawed by assuming a nonscientist could determine the findings of scientific research by quickly reading abstracts of published papers. Indeed, even trained climate scientists are unable to do so because abstracts routinely do not accurately reflect their articles' findings. According to In-Uck Park et al. in research published in Nature in 2014 (Park et al., 2014), abstracts routinely overstate or exaggerate research findings and contain claims that are irrelevant to the underlying research. The authors found "a mismatch between the claims made in the abstracts, and the strength of evidence for those claims based on a neutral analysis of the data, consistent with the occurrence of herding." They note abstracts often are loaded with "keywords" to ensure they are picked up by search engines and thus cited by other researchers. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00035 12 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Oreskes' methodology is further flawed, as are all the other surveys and abstract-counting exercises discussed in this chapter, by surveying the opinions and writings of scientists and often nonscientists who may write about climate but are by no means experts on or even casually familiar with the science dealing with attribution - that is, attributing a specific climate effect (such as a temperature increase) to a specific cause (such as rising CO 2 levels). Most articles simply reference or assume to be true the claims of IPCC and then go on to address a different topic, such as the effect of ambient temperature on the life-cycle of frogs, say, or correlations between temperature and outbreaks of influenza. Attribution is the issue the surveys ask about, but they ask people who have never studied the issue. The number of scientists actually knowledgeable about this aspect of the debate may be fewer than 100 in the world. Several are prominent skeptics (John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Roy Spencer, to name only four) and many others may be. Monckton (2007) finds numerous other errors in Oreskes' essay including her use of the search term "global climate change" instead of "climate change," which resulted in her finding fewer than one-thirteenth of the estimated corpus of scientific papers on climate change over the stated period. Monckton also points out Oreskes never stated how many of the 928 abstracts she reviewed actually endorsed her limited definition of "consensus." Medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the "consensus" and only 7 percent did so explicitly (Schulte, 2008). His study is described in more detail below. References Gore, A. 2006. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press. Monckton, C. 2007. Consensus? What consensus? Among climate scientists, the debate is not over. Washington, DC: Science and Public Policy Institute. NASA, 2015. Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is wanning. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Website. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00036 No CONSENSUS 13 Oreskes, N. 2004. Beyond the ivory tower: the scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306 (5702 December): 1686. doi: 10.1126/science.1103618. Oreskes, N. and Conway, E.M. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: NY: Bloomsbury Press. Park, 1.-U., Peacey, M.W., and Munafo, M.R. 2014. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature 506 (7486 February): 93-96. Popular Technology.net. 2014. 1350+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarmism. Website (February 12). http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.ht ml. Last viewed on September 23, 2015. Schulte, K-M. 2008. Scientific consensus on climate change? Energy & Environment 19 (2 March): 281-286. doi: 10.1260/095830508783900744. Doran and Zimmerman, 2009 In 2009, a paper by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, at the time a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis advisor Peter Doran was published in EOS. They claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that mean global temperatures have risen since before the l 800s and that humans are a significant contributing factor (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009). This study, too, has been debunked. The researchers sent a two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, generating responses from 3,146 people. Solomon (2010) observed, "The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer - those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00037 14 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING a factor - about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a Ph.D., some didn't even have a master's diploma." Only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists. Even worse than the sample size, the bias shown in its selection, and the low response rate, though, is the irrelevance of the questions asked in the survey to the debate taking place about climate change. The survey asked two questions: "Q 1. When compared with pre- l 800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered "risen" to question 1 and 82 percent answered "yes" to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent "97 percent of climate scientists believe" sound bite by focusing on only 79 scientists who responded and "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." Most skeptics of man-made global warming would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would. At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing human carbon dioxide emissions - i.e., reducing the use of fossil fuels would outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing those emissions. The survey is silent on these questions. The survey by Doran and Zimmerman fails to produce evidence that would back up claims of a "scientific consensus" about the causes or consequences of climate change. They simply asked the wrong people the wrong questions. The "98 percent" figure so often attributed to their survey refers to the opinions of only 79 scientists, hardly a representative sample of scientific opinion. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00038 No CONSENSUS 15 References Doran, P.T. and Zimmennan, M.K. 2009. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS 90 (3 January): 22-23. doi: 10.1029/2009E0030002. Solomon, L.2010. 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming. National Post. December 30. Anderegg et al., 2010 The third source cited by NASA as proof of a "scientific consensus" is another paper written by a college student. William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. He claimed to find "(i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers" (Anderegg et al., 20 l 0). This college paper was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, thanks to the addition of three academics as coauthors. This is not a survey of scientists, whether "all scientists" or specifically climate scientists. Instead, Anderegg simply counted the number of articles he found on the Internet published in academic journals by 908 scientists. This counting exercise is the same flawed methodology utilized by Oreskes, falsely assuming abstracts of papers accurately reflect their findings. Further, Anderegg did not determine how many of these authors believe global warming is harmful or that the science is sufficiently established to be the basis for public policy. Anyone who cites this study in defense of these views is mistaken. Anderegg et al. also didn't count as "skeptics" the scientists whose work exposes gaps in the man-made global warming theory or contradicts claims that climate change will be catastrophic. Avery (2007) identified several hundred scientists who fall into this category, even though some profess to "believe" in global warming. Looking past the flashy "97-98%" claim, Anderegg et al. found the average skeptic has been published about half as frequently as the average SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00039 16 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING alarmist (60 versus 119 articles). Most of this difference was driven by the hyper-productivity of a handful of alarmist climate scientists: The 50 most prolific alarmists were published an average of 408 times, versus only 89 times for the skeptics. The extraordinary publication rate of alarmists should raise a red flag. It is unlikely these scientists actually participated in most of the experiments or research contained in articles bearing their names. The difference in productivity between alarmists and skeptics can be explained by several factors other than merit: • Publication bias - articles that "find something," such as a statistically significant correlation that might suggest causation, are much more likely to get published than those that do not; • Heavy government funding of the search for one result but little or no funding for other results - the U.S. government alone paid $64 billion to climate researchers during the four years from 2010 to 2013, virtually all ofit explicitly assuming or intended to find a human impact on climate and virtually nothing on the possibility of natural causes of climate change (Butos and McQuade, 2015, Table 2, p. 178); • Resume padding - it is increasingly common for academic articles on climate change to have multiple and even a dozen or more authors, inflating the number of times a researcher can claim to have been published (Hotz, 2015). Adding a previously published researcher's name to the work of more junior researchers helps ensure approval by peer reviewers (as was the case, ironically, with Anderegg et al.); • Differences in the age and academic status of global warming alarmists versus skeptics - climate scientists who are skeptics tend to be older and more are emeritus than their counterparts on the alarmist side; skeptics are under less pressure and often are simply less eager to publish. So what, exactly, did Anderegg et al. discover? That a small clique of climate alarmists had their names added to hundreds of articles published in academic journals, something that probably would have been impossible or judged unethical just a decade or two ago. Anderegg et al. simply assert those "top 50" are more credible than scientists who publish less, but they SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00040 No CONSENSUS 17 make no effort to prove this and there is ample evidence they are not (Solomon, 2008). Once again, Anderegg et al. did not ask if authors believe global warming is a serious problem or if science is sufficiently established to be the basis for public policy. Anyone who cites this study as evidence of scientific support for such views is misrepresenting the paper. References Anderegg, W.R.L., Prall, J.W., Harold, J., and Schneider, S.H. 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (27): 12107-12109. Avery, D.T. 2007. 500 scientists whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares. The Heartland Institute (September 14). https:/ /www.heartland.org/po !icy-documents/ 500-scientists-whose-research-cont radicts-man-made-global-wanning-scares. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. Butos, W.N. and McQuade, T.J. 2015. Causes and consequences of the climate science boom. The Independent Review 20 (2 Fall): 165-196. Hotz, R.L. 2015. How many scientists does it take to write a paper? Apparently thousands. The Wall Street Journal (August 10). Solomon, L. 2008. The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. Washington, DC: Richard Vigilante Books. Cook et al., 2013 NASA's fourth source proving a "scientific consensus" is an abstractcounting exercise by a wacky Australian blogger named John Cook. Cook makes no effort to disguise his bias: His blog, misleadingly called "Skeptical Science," is mostly a collection of talking points for environmental activists and attacks on realists. He's also the author of a book titled Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. When he's not wntmg about global warming, he's a professional cartoonist (PopularTechnology.net, 2012). Why does NASA consider him to be a credible source of evidence of scientific consensus? In 2013, Cook and some of his friends persuaded Environmental SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00041 18 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Research Letters to publish their claim that a review of the abstracts of peer-reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011 found 97 percent of those that stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggested human activity is responsible for some warming (Cook et al., 2013). This exercise in abstractcounting doesn't support the alarmist claim that climate change is both man-made and dangerous, and it doesn't even support IPCC's claim that a majority of global warming in the twentieth century was man-made. This study was quickly debunked by Legates et al. (2015) in a paper published in Science & Education. Legates et al. found "just 0.03 percent endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic." They found "only 41 papers - 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97 .1 percent - had been found to endorse the standard or quantitative hypothesis." Scientists whose work questions the consensus, including Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta, and Nir J. Shaviv, protested that Cook misrepresented their work (Popular Technology.net, 2013). Richard Toi, a lead author of the United Nations' IPCC reports, said of the Cook report, "the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative" (Toi, 2013). On a blog of The Guardian, a British newspaper that had reported on the Cook report, Toi explained: "Cook's sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about 'the literature' but rather about the papers they happened to find. Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming - but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook's claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and Co. mistook for evidence" (Toi, 2014). Montford (2013) produced a blistering critique of Cook et al. in a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He reveals the authors were marketing the expected results of the paper before the research itself was conducted; changed the definition of an endorsement of the global warming hypothesis mid-stream when it became apparent the abstracts they were reviewing did not support their original (IPCC-based) definition; and gave guidance to the volunteers recruited to read and score abstracts "suggest[ing] that an abstract containing the words 'Emissions of a broad SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00042 No CONSENSUS 19 range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change' should be taken as explicit but unquantified endorsement of the consensus. Clearly the phrase quoted could imply any level of human contribution to warming." Montford concludes "the consensus referred to is trivial" since the paper "said nothing about global warming being dangerous" and that "the project was not a scientific investigation to determine the extent of agreement on global warming, but a public relations exercise." A group of Canadian retired Earth and atmospheric scientists called Friends of Science produced a report in 2014 that reviewed the four surveys and abstract-counting exercises summarized above (Friends of Science, 2014). The scientists searched the papers for the percentage ofrespondents or abstracts that explicitly agree with IPCC's declaration that human activity is responsible for more than half of observed warming. They found Oreskes found only 1.2 percent agreement; Doran and Zimmerman, 3.4 percent; Anderegg et al., 66 percent; and Cook et al., 0.54 percent. They conclude, "The purpose of the 97% claim lies in the psychological sciences, not in climate science. A 97% consensus claim is merely a 'social proof' a powerful psychological motivator intended to make the public comply with the herd; to not be the 'odd man out.' Friends of Science deconstruction of these surveys shows there is no 97% consensus on human-caused global warming as claimed in these studies. None of these studies indicate any agreement with a catastrophic view of human-caused global warming" (p. 4). References Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S.A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R. Jacobs, P., and Skuce, A. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8 (2). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. Friends of Science. 2014. 97 Percent Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs. Calgary, Canada: Friends of Science Society. Legates, D.R., Soon, W., Briggs, W.M., and Monckton, C. 2015. Climate consensus and 'misinfonnation': A rejoinder to agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change. Science & Education 24 (3): 299-318. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00043 20 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Montford, A. 2013. Consensus? What consensus? GWPF Note 5. London, UK: Global Warming Policy Foundation. Popular Technology.net. 2012. The truth about Skeptical Science. Website (March 18). http:/ /www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-aboutskeptical-science.html. Last viewed on May 20, 2016. Popular Technology.net. 2013. 97% Study falsely classifies scientists' papers, according to the scientists that published them. Website (May 21 ). http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study- falsely-classifies-scientists. html. Last viewed on September 23, 2015. Toi, R. 2013. Open letter to Professor Peter H0j, president and vice-chancellor, University of Queensland (August 2013). http://joannenova.com.au/2013 /08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-s hows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/. Toi, R. 2014. The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up. The Guardian. Blog (June 6). http://www. the guardian.com/ environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global -wanning. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. Evidence of Lack of Consensus In contrast to the studies described above, which try but fail to find a consensus in support of the claim that global warming is man-made and dangerous, many authors and surveys have found widespread disagreement or even that a majority of scientists oppose the alleged consensus. These surveys and studies generally suffer the same methodological errors as afflict the ones described above, but they suggest that even playing by the alarmists' rules, the results demonstrate disagreement rather than consensus. Klaus-Martin Schulte, 2008 Schulte (2008), a practicing physician, observed, "Recently, patients alarmed by the tone of media reports and political speeches on climate change have been voicing distress, for fear of the imagined consequences of anthropogenic 'global warming."' Concern that his patients were experiencing unnecessary stress "prompted me to review the literature available on 'climate change and health' via PubMed SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00044 No CONSENSUS 21 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez)"and then to attempt to replicate Oreskes' 2004 report. "In the present study," Schulte wrote, "Oreskes' research was brought up to date by using the same search term on the same database to identify abstracts of 539 scientific papers published between 2004 and mid-February 2007." According to Schulte, "The results show a tripling of the mean annual publication rate for papers using the search term 'global climate change', and, at the same time, a significant movement of scientific opinion away from the apparently unanimous consensus which Oreskes had found in the learned journals from 1993 to 2003. Remarkably, the proportion of papers explicitly or implicitly rejecting the consensus has risen from zero in the period 1993-2003 to almost 6% since 2004. Six papers reject the consensus outright." Schulte also found "Though Oreskes did not state how many of the papers she reviewed explicitly endorsed the consensus that human greenhouse-gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the past 50 years' warming, only 7% of the more recent papers reviewed here were explicit in endorsing the consensus even in the strictly limited sense she had defined. The proportion of papers that now explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus has fallen from 75% to 45%." Schulte's findings demonstrate that if Oreskes' methodology were correct and her findings for the period 1993 to 2003 accurate, then scientific publications in the more recent period of 2004-2007 show a strong tendency away from the consensus Oreskes claimed to have found. We can doubt the utility of the methodology used by both Oreskes and Schulte but recognize that the same methodology applied during two time periods reveals a significant shift from consensus to open debate on the causes of climate change. Reference Schulte, K-M. 2008. Scientific consensus on climate change? Energy & Environment 19 (2 March): 281-286. doi: 10.1260/095830508783900744. Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, 1996, 2003, 2008, 2010 Surveys by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00045 22 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING in 1996, 2003, 2008, and 2010 consistently found climate scientists have deep doubts about the reliability of the science underlying claims of man-made climate change (Bray and von Storch, 2007; Bray and von Storch, 2008; Bray and von Storch, 2010). This finding is seldom reported because the authors repeatedly portray their findings as supporting, as Bray wrote in 2010, "three dimensions of consensus, as it pertains to climate change science: 1. manifestation, 2. attribution, and 3. legitimation" (Bray, 2010). They do not. One question in Bray and von Storch's latest survey (2010) asked scientists to grade, on a scale from 1 "very inadequate" to 7 "very adequate," the "data availability for climate change analysis." On this very important question, more respondents said "very inadequate" (1 or 2) than "very adequate" (6 or 7), with most responses ranging between 3 and 5. Bray and von Storch summarized their survey results using a series of graphs plotting responses to each question. In their latest survey, 54 graphs show responses to questions addressing scientific issues as opposed to opinions about IPCC, where journalists tend to get their information, personal identification with environmental causes, etc. About a third show more skepticism than confidence, a third show more confidence than skepticism, and a third suggest equal amounts of skepticism and confidence. For example, more scientists said "very inadequate" (1 or 2) than "very adequate" (6 or 7) when asked "How well do atmospheric models deal with the influence of clouds?" and "How well do atmospheric models deal with precipitation?" and "How well do atmospheric models deal with atmospheric convection?" and "The ability of global climate models to model sea-level rise for the next 50 years" and "The ability of global climate models to model extreme events for the next 10 years." These are not arcane or trivial matters in the climate debate. Unfortunately, the Bray and von Storch surveys also show disagreement and outright skepticism about the underlying science of climate change don't prevent most scientists from expressing their opinion that man-made global warming is occurring and is a serious problem. On those questions, the distribution skews away from uncertainty and toward confidence. Observing this contradiction in their 1996 survey, Bray and von Storch described it as "an empirical example of 'postnormal science,'" the willingness to endorse a perceived consensus despite knowledge of contradictory scientific knowledge when the risks are perceived as being great (Bray and von Storch, 1999). Others might refer to this as cognitive SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00046 No CONSENSUS 23 dissonance, holding two contradictory opinions at the same time, or "herding," the well-documented tendency of academics facing uncertainty to ignore research that questions a perceived consensus position in order to advance their careers (Baddeleya, 2013). On their face, Bray and von Storch's results should be easy to interpret. For at least a third of the questions asked, more scientists aren't satisfied than are with the quality of data, reliability of models, or predictions about future climate conditions. For another third, there is as much skepticism as there is strong confidence. Most scientists are somewhere in the middle, somewhat convinced that man-made climate change is occurring but concerned about lack of data and other fundamental uncertainties, far from the "95%+ certainty" claimed by IPCC. Bray and von Storch are very coy in reporting and admitting the amount of disagreement their surveys find on the basic science of global warming, suggesting they have succumbed to the very cognitive dissonance they once described. But their data clearly reveal a truth: There is no scientific consensus. References Baddeleya, M. 2013. Herding, social influence and expert opinion. Journal of Economic Methodology 20 (1): 35-44. Bray, D. 2010. The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environmental Science & Policy 13: 340-350. Bray, D. and von Storch, H. 2007. The perspective of climate scientists on global climate change.' GKSS Report GKSS 2007 /11. http://www.gkss.de/ central_ departments/library /publications/berichte _ 2007 /inde x.html.en. Bray, D. and von Storch, H. 2008. The perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change: A survey of opinions. http://coast.gkss.de/staff/ storch/pdf/ CliSci2008 .pdf. Bray, D. and von Storch, H. 2010. A survey of climate scientists concerning climate science and climate change. http://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_ Bray_ and_ von _Storch-survey_ of_the_p erceptions _ of_ climate_ scientists_ 2008 _report_ codebook_ and_ XLS_ data. Bray, D. and von Storch, H. 1999: Climate science: An empirical example of SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00047 24 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING postnormal science. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80: 439-455. Verheggen et al., 2014, 2015 Verheggen et al. (2014) and Strengers, Verheggen, and Vringer (2015) reported the results of a survey they conducted in 2012 of contributors to IPCC reports, authors of articles appearing in scientific literature, and signers of petitions on global warming (but apparently not the Global Warming Petition Project, described below). By the authors' own admission, "signatories of public statements disapproving of mainstream climate science . . . amounts to less than 5% of the total number of respondents," suggesting the sample is heavily biased toward pro-"consensus" views. Nevertheless, this survey found fewer than half of respondents agreed with IPCC's most recent claims. A total of7,555 authors were contacted and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 29 percent. Verheggen et al. asked specifically about agreement or disagreement with IPCC' s claim in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) that it is "virtually certain" or "extremely likely" that net anthropogenic activities are responsible for more than half of the observed increase in global average temperatures in the past 50 years. When asked "What fraction of global warming since the mid 20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?," 64 percent chose fractions of 51 percent or more, indicating agreement with IPCC AR5. (Strengers, Verheggen, and Vringer, 2015, Figure la.I) When those who chose fractions of 51 percent or more were asked, "What confidence level would you ascribe to your estimate that the anthropogenic GHG warming is more than 50% ?," 65 percent said it was "virtually certain" or "extremely likely," the language used by IPCC to characterize its level of confidence (Ibid., Figure lb). The math is pretty simple: Two-thirds of the authors in this survey- a sample heavily biased toward IPCC's point of view by including virtually all its editors and contributors - agreed with IPCC on the impact of human emissions on the climate, and two-thirds of those who agreed were as confident as IPCC in that finding. Sixty-five percent of 64 percent is 41.6 percent, so fewer than half of the survey' s respondents support IPCC. More precisely - since some responses were difficult to interpret - 42.6 percent SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00048 No CONSENSUS 25 (797 of 1,868) of respondents were highly confident that more than 50 percent of the warming is human-caused. This survey shows IPCC's position on global warming is the minority perspective in this part of the science community. Since the sample was heavily biased toward contributors to IPCC reports and academics most likely to publish, one can assume a survey of a larger universe of scientists would reveal even less support for IPCC's position. Like Bray and von Storch (2010) discussed above, and Stenhouse et al., (2014) discussed below, Verheggen et al. seem embarrassed by their findings and hide them in tables in a report issued a year after their original publication rather than explain them in the text of their peer-reviewed article. It took the efforts of a blogger to call attention to the real data (Fabius Maximus, 2015). Once again, the data reveal no scientific consensus. References Bray, D. and von Storch, H. 2010. A survey of climate scientists concerning climate science and climate change. http:/ /www.academia.edu/2365610/The _ Bray _and_ von _Storch-survey_ of_ the _p erceptions _of_ climate_ scientists_ 2008 _report_ codebook_ and_ XLS_ data. Fabius Maximus, 2015. Website. New study undercuts key IPCC finding. http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07 /29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-findin g-87796/. Last viewed on September 24, 2015. Strengers, B., Verheggen, B., and Vringer, K. 2015. Climate science survey questions and responses. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (April 10). http://www.pbl.nl/sites/ default/files/ cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-su rvey-questions-and-responses _ 01731.pdf. Stenhouse, N., Maibach, E., Cobb, S., Ban, R., Bleistein, A., Croft, P., Bierly, E., Seitter, K., Rasmussen, G., and Leiserowitz, A. 2014: Meteorologists' views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95: 1029-1040. Verheggen, B., Strengers, B., Cook, J., van Dorland, R., Vringer, K., Peters, J., Visser, H., and Meyer, L. 2014. Scientists' views about attribution of global warming. Environmental Science & Technology 48 ( 16): 8963-8971. doi: 10.1021/es501998e. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00049 26 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Surveys of Meteorologists and Environmental Professionals The American Meteorological Society (AMS) reported in 2013 that only 52 percent of AMS members who responded to its survey reported believing the warming of the past 150 years was man-made (Stenhouse et al., 2014). The finding was reported in a table on the last page of the pre-publication version of the paper and was not even mentioned in the body of the peerreviewed article. From an earlier publication of the survey's results (Maibach et al., 2012) it appears 76 percent of those who believe in man-made global warming also believe it is "very harmful" or "somewhat harmful," so it appears 39.5 percent of AMS members responding to the survey say they believe man-made global warming could be dangerous. Once again, this finding doesn't appear in the peer-reviewed article. Questions asked in the AMS survey reveal political ideology is the strongest or second strongest factor in determining a scientist's position on global warming. But the published report doesn't reveal whether all or just nearly all of the AMS members who believe man-made global warming is dangerous self-identify as being liberals. In light of the numbers presented above, this appears likely. Other surveys of meteorologists also found a majority oppose the alleged consensus (Taylor, 201 0a, 201 Ob). A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. conducted by the National Registry of Environmental Professionals, for example, found 41 percent disagreed the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity," and 71 percent disagreed recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity (Taylor, 2007). References Maibach, E., Stenhouse, N., Cobb, S., Ban, R., Bleistein, A., et al. 2012. American Meteorological Society member survey on global warming: Preliminary findings (February 12). Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication. Stenhouse, N., Maibach, E., Cobb, S., Ban, R., Bleistein, A., Croft, P., Bierly, E., Seitter, K., Rasmussen, G., and Leiserowitz, A. 2014: Meteorologists' views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00050 No CONSENSUS 27 professional members.Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95: 1029-1040. Taylor, J.M. 2010a. Majority of broadcast meteorologistsskeptical of global warming crisis. Environment & Climate News (April). Taylor, J.M. 2010b. Meteorologistsreject U.N. 's global wanning claims. Environment & Climate News (February). Taylor, J.M. 2007. Warming debate not over, survey of scientists shows. Environment & Climate News (February). Global Warming Petition Project The Global Warming Petition Project (2015) is a statement about the causes and consequences of climate change signed by 31,478 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D.s. The full statement reads: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. This is a remarkably strong statement of dissent from the perspective advanced by IPCC. The fact that more than ten times as many scientists have signed it as are alleged to have "participated" in some way or another in the research, writing, and review ofIPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is very significant. These scientists actually endorse the statement that appears above. By contrast, fewer than 100 of the scientists (and nonscientists) who are listed in the appendices to IPCC reports actually participated in the writing of the all-important Summary for Policymakers SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00051 28 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING or the editing of the final report to comply with the summary, and therefore could be said to endorse the main findings of that report. The Global Warming Petition Project has been criticized for including names of suspected nonscientists, including names submitted by environmental activists for the purpose of discrediting the petition. But the organizers of the project painstakingly reconfirmed the authenticity of the names in 2007, and a complete directory of those names appeared as an appendix to Climate Change Reconsidered: Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), published in 2009 (Idso and Singer, 2009). For more information about The Petition Project, including the text of the letter endorsing it written by the late Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, visit the project's website at www.petitionproject.org. References Global Warming Petition Project. 2015. Global warming petition project. Website. http://www.petitionproject.org/. Last viewed September 23, 2015. Idso, C.D. and Singer, S.F. 2009. (Eds.) Climate Change Reconsidered: Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NJPCC). Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. Admissions of Lack of Consensus Even prominent "alarmists" in the climate change debate admit there is no consensus. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, when asked if the debate on climate change is over, told the BBC, "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view" (BBC News, 2010). When asked, "Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?" Jones replied, Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00052 No CONSENSUS 29 for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below). I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. Finally, when asked "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming" Jones answered "yes." His replies contradict claims made by IPCC. Mike Hulme, also a professor at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to IPCC reports, wrote in 2009: "What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change" (Hulme, 2009, p. 75). He admits "Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate" (p. 83). On the subject of IPCC's credibility, he admits it is "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists" (p. 95). All this is exactly what IPCC critics have been saying for years. *** As this summary makes apparent, there is no survey or study that supports the claim of a scientific consensus that global warming is both man-made and a problem, and ample evidence to the contrary. There is no scientific consensus on global warming. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00053 30 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING References BBC News. 2010. Q&A: Professor Phil Jones (February 13). https:/ /www.heartland.org/policy-documents/qa-professor-phil-jones. Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00054 2 Why Scientists Disagree Key findings in this section include the following: • Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. • Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. • The United Nations' Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. • Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism,grant-seeking,political views, and confirmation bias. Conflict of Disciplines One reason disagreement among those participating in the climate change debate may be sharper and sometimes more personal than is observed in debates on other topics is because climate is an interdisciplinary subject 31 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00055 32 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING requiring insights from astronomy, biology, botany, cosmology, economics, geochemistry, geology, history, oceanography, paleontology, physics, and scientific forecasting and statistics, among other disciplines. Very few scholars in the field have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist at MIT, observed, "Outside any given specialty, there are few- including scientists-who can distinguish one scientist from another, and this leaves a great deal of latitude for advocates and politicians to invent their own 'experts.' ... In effect, once political action is anticipated, the supporting scientific position is given a certain status whereby objections are reckoned to represent mere uncertainty, while scientific expertise is strongly discounted" (Lindzen, 1996, p. 98). When an expert in one field, say physics, presents an estimate of the climate's sensitivity to rising carbon dioxide levels, an expert in another field, say biology, can quickly challenge his understanding of the carbon cycle, whereby huge volumes of carbon dioxide are added to and removed from the atmosphere. Unless the physicist is intimately familiar with the literature on the impact of rising levels of CO 2 on photosynthesis, plant growth, and carbon sequestration by plants and aquatic creatures, he or she is missing the bigger picture and is likely to be wrong. But so too will the biologist miss the "big picture" ifhe or she doesn't understand the transfer of energy at the top of the atmosphere and how the effects of CO 2 change logarithmically as its concentration rises. Geologists view time in millennia and eons and are aware of huge fluctuations in both global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, with the two often moving in different directions. They scoff at physicists and botanists who express concern over a historically tiny increase in carbon dioxide concentrations of 100 parts per million and a half-degree C increase in temperature over the course of a century. But how many geologists understand the impact of even relatively small changes in temperature or humidity on the range and health of some plants and animals? Economists are likely to ask if the benefits of trying to "stop" global warming outweigh the benefits of providing clean water or electricity to billions of people living in terrible poverty. Wouldn't it be wiser- better for humanity and perhaps even wildlife - to focus on helping people today become more prosperous and consequently more concerned about SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00056 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 33 protecting the environment and able to afford to adapt to changes in weather regardless of their causes? But do economists properly value the contribution of ecological systems to human welfare, or apply properly the discount rates they use to measure costs and benefits that occur far in the future? Simon (1999) observed another consequence of this tunnel vision. Scientists are often optimistic about the safety of the environment when it relates to subjects encompassing their own area of research and expertise, but are pessimistic about risks outside their range of expertise. Simon wrote: This phenomenon is apparent everywhere. Physicians know about the extraordinary progress in medicine that they fully expect to continue, but they can't believe in the same sort of progress in natural resources. Geologists know about the progress in natural resources that pushes down their prices, but they worry about food. Even worse, some of those who are most optimistic about their own areas point with alarm to other issues to promote their own initiatives. The motive is sometimes self-interest (pp. 47-8). The climate change debate resembles the famous tale of a group of blind men touching various parts of an elephant, each arriving at a very different idea of what it is like: to one it is like a tree, to another, a snake, and to a third, a wall. A wise man tells the group, "You are all right. An elephant has all the features you mentioned." But how many physicists, geologists, biologists, and economists want to be told they are missing "the big picture" or that their earnest concern and good research aren't enough to describe a complex phenomenon, and therefore not a reliable guide to making decisions about what mankind should do? Few indeed. This source of disagreement seems obvious but is seldom discussed. Scientists (both physical scientists and social scientists )make assertions and predictions claiming high degrees of confidence, a term with precise meaning in science but turned into an empty tool of rhetoric by IPCC and its allies, that are wholly unjustified given their training and ignorance of large parts of the vast literature regarding climate. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00057 34 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING References Lindzen, R.S. 1996 Chapter 5. Science and politics: Global warming and eugenics. In Hahn, R.W. (Ed.) Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results from Regulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 85-103. Simon, J. 1999. Hoodwinking the Nation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Scientific Uncertainties Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The claim that human activities are causing or will cause catastrophic global warming or climate change is a rebuttable hypothesis, not a scientific theory and certainly not the "consensus" view of the science community. The human impact on climate remains a puzzle. As Bony et al. wrote in 2015, "Fundamental puzzles of climate science remain unsolved because of our limited understanding of how clouds, circulation and climate interact" (abstract). Reporting in Nature on Bony' s study, Quirin Schiermeier wrote, "There is a misconception that the major challenges in physical climate science are settled. 'That's absolutely not true,' says Sandrine Bony, a climate researcher at the Laboratory of Dynamic Meteorology in Paris. 'In fact, essential physical aspects of climate change are poorly understood"' (Schiermeier, 2015, p. 140). Schiermeier goes on to write, "large uncertainties persist in 'climate sensitivity,' the increase in average global temperature caused by a given rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide," citing Bjorn Stevens, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany (Ibid.). Bony has also identified uncertainty in climate science in the journal Science (Stevens and Bony, 2013). The first volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered II series cited thousands of peer-reviewed articles and studies revealing the extensive uncertainty acknowledged by Bony et al. Since the Summary for Policymakers of that volume appears below (Chapters 3 to 7), there is no need to summarize its findings here. Instead, it is useful to ponder the views of two prominent climate scientists whose scientific contributions to the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00058 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 35 debate are widely acknowledged. Richard S. Lindzen, quoted earlier, is one of the world's most distinguished atmospheric physicists. According to the biography on MIT's website, "he has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO 2 , the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. "Lindzen is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory." He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1964. According to Lindzen (1996), there are three principal areas of uncertainty in climate science: • "First, the basic greenhouse process is not simple. In particular, it is not merely a matter of the bases that absorb heat radiation - greenhouse gases - keeping the earth warm. If it were, the natural greenhouse would be about four times more effective than it actually is .... • "Second, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. ... Roughly speaking, changes in relative humidity on the order of 1.3 to 4 percent are equivalent to the effect of doubling carbon dioxide. Our measurement uncertainty for trends in water vapor is in excess of 10 percent, and once again, model errors are known to substantially exceed measurement errors in a very systematic way. • "Third, the direct impact of doubling carbon dioxide on the earth's temperature is rather small: on the order of .3 degrees C. Larger predictions depend on positive feedbacks .... [T]hose factors arise from models with errors in those factors." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00059 36 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING "[T]here is very little argument about the above points," Lindzen wrote. "They are, for the most part, textbook material showing that there are errors and uncertainties in physical processes central to model predictions that are an order of magnitude greater than the climate forcing due to a putative doubling of carbon dioxide. There is, nonetheless, argument over whether the above points mean that the predicted significant response to increased carbon dioxide is without meaningful basis. Here there is disagreement" (pp. 86-7). For Lindzen's more recent views (which are similar) see Lindzen (2012). A second recognized authority is Judith Curry, a professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her Ph.D. in geophysical sciences is from the University of Chicago, and she served for three decades on the faculties of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Purdue, Penn State, University of Colorado-Boulder, and since 2002 at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is an elected fellow of the American Geophysical Union and councilor and fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Curry delivered a speech on June 15, 2015 to the British House of Lords. Titled "State of the climate debate in the U.S.," the prepared text of her remarks is available online (Curry, 2015). Curry wrote, "there is widespread agreement" on three basic tenets: "Surface temperatures have increased since 1880, humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, [and] carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet." However, she wrote, "there is disagreement about the most consequential issues," which she lists as the following: • "Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes • "How much the planet will warm in the 21st century • "Whether warming is 'dangerous' • "Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO 2 emissions, and whether reduction will improve the climate" Observing the "growing divergence between models and observations," she poses three questions: • "Are climate models too sensitive to greenhouse forcing? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00060 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 37 • "Is the modeled treatment of natural climate variability inadequate? • "Are climate model projections of 21st century warming too high?" After observing surveys show most scientists seem to accept IPCC 's claims, she wrote, "Nevertheless, a great deal of uncertainty remains, and there is plenty ofroom for disagreement. So why do scientists disagree?" She gives five possible reasons: • "Insufficient observational evidence • "Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence • "Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence • "Assessments of areas of ambiguity & ignorance • "And finally, the politicization of the science can torque the science in politically desired directions." "None of the most consequential scientific uncertainties are going to be resolved any time soon," Curry wrote. "[T]here is a great deal of work still to do to understand climate change. And there is a growing realization that unpredictable natural climate variability is important." All of this concurs with the findings ofNIPCC and was documented at great length in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (Idso et al., 2013; Idso et al., 2014). References Bony, S., Stevens, B., Frierson, D.M.W., Jakob, C., Kageyama, M., Pincus, R., Shepherd, T.G., Sherwood, S.C., Siebesma, A.P., Sobel, A.H., Watanebe, M., and Webb, M.J. 2015. Nature Geoscience 8: 261-268. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2398. Curry, J. 2015. State of the climate debate in the U.S. Remarks to the U.K. House of Lords, June 15. Climate Etc. Website. http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/15/state-of-the-climate-debate-in-the-u-s/. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00061 38 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Idso, C.D, Carter, R.M., and Singer, S.F. (Eds.) 2013. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. Idso, C.D, Idso, S.B., Carter, R.M., and Singer, S.F. (Eds.) 2014. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. Lindzen, R.S. 1996. Chapter 5. Science and politics: Global warming and eugenics. In Hahn, R.W. (Ed.) Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results from Regulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 85-103. Lindzen, R.S. 2012. Climate science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? Euresis Journal 2 (Winter): 161-192. Schienneier, Q. 2015. Physicists, your planet needs you. Nature 520 (7546 April): 140-141. doi: 10.1038/520140a. Stevens, B. and Bony, S. 2013. What are climate models missing? Science 340 (6136 May): 1053-1054. doi: 10.1126/science.1237554. Failure of IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. According to Bray (2010), "In terms of providing future projection[s] of the global climate, the most significant player in setting the agenda is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is typically assumed that IPCC, consisting of some 2500 climate scientists, after weighing the evidence, arrived at a consensus that global temperatures are rising and the most plausible cause is anthropogenic in nature." As this section will explain, that assumption is wrong. Prior to the mid-1980s very few climate scientists believed man-made climate change was a problem. This non-alarmist "consensus" on the causes and consequences of climate change included nearly all the leading climate scientists in the world, including Roger Revelle, often identified as one of the first scientists to "sound the alarm" over man-made global warming (Solomon, 2008; Singer, Revelle and Starr, 1992). Most of the reports purporting to show a "consensus" beginning in the 1980s came from and continue to come from committees funded by SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00062 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 39 government agencies tasked with finding a new problem to address or by liberal foundations with little or no scientific expertise (Darwall, 2013; Carlin, 2015; Moore et al., 2014). These committees, one of which was IPCC, often produced reports making increasingly bold and confident assertions about future climate impacts, but they invariably included statements admitting deep scientific uncertainty (Weart, 2015). Reports of IPCC, including drafts of the latest Fifth Assessment Report, are replete with examples of this pattern. It is common for committees seeking consensus reports to include qualifications and admissions of uncertainty and even publish dissenting reports by committee members. This common practice had an unintended result in the climate debate. Politicians, environmental activists, and rent-seeking corporations in the renewable energy industry began to routinely quote IPCC's alarming claims and predictions shorn of the important qualifying statements expressing deep doubts and reservations. Rather than protest this mishandling of its work, IPCC encouraged it by producing Summaries for Policymakers that edit away or attempt to hide qualifying statements. IPCC news releases have become more and more alarmist over time until they are indistinguishable from the news releases and newsletters of environmental groups. In fact, many of those IPCC news releases were written or strongly influenced by professional environmental activists who had effectively taken over the organization. Some climate scientists spoke out early and forcefully against this corruption of science (Idso, 1982; Landsberg, 1984; Idso, 1989; Singer, 1989; Jastrow,Nierenberg, and Seitz, 1990; Balling, 1992; Michaels, 1992), but their voices were difficult to hear amid a steady drumbeat of doomsday forecasts produced by environmentalists and their allies in the mainstream media. Perhaps the most conspicuous and consequential example of this practice occurred in 2006 in the form of a movie titled An Inconvenient Truth, produced by former Vice President Al Gore, and Gore's book with the same title (Gore, 2006). The movie earned Gore a Nobel Peace Prize (shared with IPCC), yet it made so many unsubstantiated claims and over-the-top predictions it was declared "propaganda" by a UK judge, and schools there were ordered to give students a study guide identifying and correcting its errors before showing the movie (Dimmack v. Secretary of State.for Education and Skills, 2007). The principal source cited in Gore's movie and book, and arguably the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00063 40 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING reason it was well-received by much of the science community, was IPCC. There is no evidence IPCC ever complained about the misrepresentation of its report in the film or asked for corrections. Despite documentation of the film's and book's many flaws (e.g., Lewis, 2007), Gore has never revised the book or even acknowledged the errors. IPCC's reliability was crippled at birth, mandated by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to define climate change as human-caused climate change and to disregard naturally caused climate change. Since natural climate change is at the very center of the debate over whether human activity is influencing the climate and by how much, this essentially predetermined IPCC's conclusions. Tasked with finding a human impact on climate and calling on the nations of the world to do something about it, IPCC pursued its mission with fierce dedication. IPCC's reports have been subjected to withering criticism by scientists and authors almost too numerous to count, including even high-profile editors and contributors to its reports (Seitz, 1996; Lindzen, 2012; Toi, 2014; Stavins, 2014) and no fewer than six rigorously researched books by one climate scientist, Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, and a research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia for 30 years (Michaels, 1992, 2000, 2005a, 2005b, 2009, 2011 ). Michaels also was a contributing author and is a reviewer of IPCC' s reports. Besides Michaels, see Singer (1997); Essex and McKitrick (2003); McIntyre and McKitrick (2005); Green and Armstrong (2007); Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009); Pielke Jr. (2010); Carter (2010); Bell (2011 ); and Vahrenholt and Luning (2015). Others have pointed out IPCC's heavy reliance on environmental advocacy groups in the compilation of its official reports, using their personnel as lead authors and incorporating their publications - even newsletters - as source material (Laframboise, 2011). Scientists who participated in the latest IPCC report (AR5) described the process of producing the Summary for Policymakers as "exceptionally frustrating" and "one of the most extraordinary experiences of my academic life" (Economist, 2014). Criticism hasn't come only from individual scientists. Nature, a prominent science journal, editorialized in 2013: "[I]t is time to rethink the IPCC. The organization deserves thanks and respect from all who care SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00064 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 41 about the principle of evidence-based policy-making, but the current report should be its last mega-assessment." (Nature, 2013) After describing the "exponential" growth of its reports and "truly breathtaking array of data" IPCC reports offer, the editors wrote, "Unfortunately, one thing that has not changed is that scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. In particular, the temperature range of the warming that would result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is expected to be judged as l .5-4.5°C in next week's report - wider than in the last assessment and exactly what it was in the report of 1990.... Absent from next week's report, for instance, is recent and ongoing research on the rate of warming and what is - or is not behind the plateau in average global temperatures that the world has experienced during the past 15 years. These questions have important policy implications, and the IPCC is the right body to answer them. But it need not wait six years to do so" (Ibid.). In 2014, a reporter for Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), reported on political interference with IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report: "Although the underlying technical report from WGIII was accepted by the IPCC, final, heated negotiations among scientific authors and diplomats led to a substantial deletion of figures and text from the influential 'Summary for Policymakers' (SPM) . . . . [S]ome fear that this redaction of content marks an overstepping of political interests, raising questions about division of labor between scientists and policy-makers and the need for new strategies in assessing complex science. Others argue that SPM should explicitly be coproduced with governments" (Wible, 2014). The subtitle of the article is "Did the 'Summary for Policymakers' become a summary by policy-makers?" Later in 2014, after release of the Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report, Nature reported critics "find the key conclusions unsurprising and short of detail. They say that the document sidesteps any hint of what specific countries, or groups of countries, should do to move towards clean energy systems .... Some researchers have long argued for a more pragmatic and diversified approach to climate change" (Schiermeier, 2014, p. 298). Particularly harsh criticism of IPCC has come from the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC), which is made up of the presidents of many of the world's national science academies, the very SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00065 42 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING academies defenders of IPCC often say endorse IPCC's findings. IAC conducted a thorough audit of IPCC in 2010 (IAC, 2010). Among its findings: Fake confidence intervals: IAC was highly critical ofIPCC's method of assigning "confidence" levels to its forecasts, singling out " ... the many statements in the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers that are assigned high confidence but are based on little evidence. Moreover, the apparent need to include statements of 'high confidence' (i.e., an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct) in the Summary for Policymakers led authors to make many vaguely defined statements that are difficult to refute, therefore making them of 'high confidence.' Such statements have little value" (p. 61). Use of gray-sources: Too much reliance on unpublished and non-peer-reviewed sources (p. 63). Three sections of IPCC's 2001 climate assessment cited peer-reviewed material only 36 percent, 59 percent, and 84 percent of the time. Political interference: Line-by-line editing of the summaries for policymakers during "grueling Plenary session that lasts several days, usually culminating in an all-night meeting. Scientists and government representatives who responded to the Committee's questionnaire suggested changes to reduce opportunities for political interference with the scientific results ... " (p. 64). The use of secret data: "An unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to freedom-of-information requests were the main problems uncovered in some of the controversies surrounding IPCC (Russell et al., 201 0; PBL, 2010). Poor access to data inhibits users' ability to check the quality of the data used and to verify the conclusions drawn ... " (p. 68). Selection of contributors is politicized: Politicians decide which scientists are allowed to participate in the writing and review process: "political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 14). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00066 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 43 Chapter authors exclude opposing views: "Equally important is combating confirmation bias-the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al., 2001 ). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them ... " (p. 18). Need for independent review: "Although implementing the above recommendations would greatly strengthen the review process, it would not make the review process truly independent because the Working Group Co-chairs, who have overall responsibility for the preparation of the reports, are also responsible for selecting Review Editors. To be independent, the selection of Review Editors would have to be made by an individual or group not engaged in writing the report, and Review Editors would report directly to that individual or group (NRC, 1998, 2002)" (p. 21). This is a damning critique. IPCC misrepresents its findings and does not properly peer review its reports. The selection of scientists who participate is politicized, the summary for policymakers is the product of late-night negotiations among governments and is not written by scientists, and more. The quotations above and the reference below are to a publicly circulated draft ofIAC 's final report, still available online ( see reference). The final report was heavily edited to water down and perhaps hide the extent of problems uncovered by the investigators, itself evidence of still more misconduct. The report received virtually no press attention in the United States. In 2012, IPCC issued a news release saying in part, "IPCC's 32nd session in Busan, Republic of Korea, in October 2010, adopted most of the IAC recommendations, and set up Task Groups to work on their implementation" (IPCC, 2012). One key recommendation, that a new Executive Committee be created that would include "three independent members," was almost comically disregarded: the committee was created, but all three slots were filled with IPCC employees (Laframboise, 2013). It is doubtful whether any other changes made at that time would have meaningfully affected the Fifth Assessment Report, which was already largely written. Media accounts of the release of ARS once again told of late-night sessions with politicians and advocacy group representatives SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00067 44 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING rewriting the Summary for Policymakers. In conclusion, it is difficult to understand why IPCC reports still command the respect of anyone in the climate debate. They are political documents, not balanced or accurate summaries of the current state of climate science. They cannot provide reliable guidance to policymakers, economists, and climate scientists who put their trust in them. References Balling, R.C. 1992. The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions versus Climate Reality. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Bell, L. 2011. Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Austin, TX: Greenleaf Book Group Press. Bray, D. 2010. The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environmental Science & Policy 13: 340-350. Bray, D. and Von Storch, H. 2010. A survey of climate scientists concerning climate science and climate change. http://www.academia.edu/2365610/ A_ Survey_ of_ Climate_ Scientists_ Concernin g_ Climate_ Science_ and_ Climate_ Change. Carlin, A. 2015. Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy. Mount Vernon, WA: Stairway Press. Carter, R.M. 2010. Climate: The Counter Consensus. London, UK: Stacey International. Darwall, R. 2013. The Age of Global Warming: A History. London, UK: Quartet Books Limited. Dimmack v. Secretary of State for Education and Skills. 2007. Case No. CO/3615/2007. Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London. https:/ /www.heartland.org/press-releases/2007 / 10/02/british-high-court-decisiongore- film-inconvenient-truth. Economist. 2014. Inside the sausage factory (May 10). http:/ /www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21601813-scientists-v ersus-diplomats-intergovernmental-panel-climate. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00068 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 45 Essex, C. and McKitrick, R. 2003. Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming. Toronto, Canada: Key Porter Books. Gore, A. 2006. An Inconvenient Truth. Eamus, PA: Rodale Press. Green, K. and Armstrong, J.S. 2007. Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts. Energy and Environment 18: 997-1021. Green, K., Armstrong, J.S., and Soon, W. 2009. Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making. International Journal of Forecasting 25: 826-832. IAC. 2010. InterAcademy Council. Draft: Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes & Procedures of IPCC. Committee to Review the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, October. The Hague, Netherlands. https:/ /www.heartland.org/po !icy-documents/ climate-change-assessments-revie w-processes-and-procedures- ipcc. Idso, S.B. 1982. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? Tempe, AZ: IBR Press. Idso, S.B. 1989. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. Tempe, AZ: IBR Press. IPCC, 2012. IPCC completes review of processes and procedures. News release (June 27). http:/ /www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC _report/IAC _PR_ Completion.pdf. Jastrow, R., Nierenberg, W., and Seitz, F. 1990. Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem. Ottawa, IL: The Marshall Press. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., and Thelen, N. 2001, Confinnation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80: 557-571. Laframboise, D. 2011. The Delinquent Teenager Who was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert. Toronto, Canada: Ivy Avenue Press. Laframboise, D. 2013. Into the Dustbin: Rachendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Landsberg, H.E.1984. Global climatic trends. In: Simon, J.L. and Kahn, H. (Eds.) The Resourceful Earth: A Response to 'Global 2000. 'New York, NY: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited. 272-315. Lewis, M. 2007. CEI Congressional Briefing Paper: Al Gore's Science Fiction. Washington, DC: Competitive Enterprise Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00069 46 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Lindzen, R.S. 2012. Climate science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? Euresis Journal 2 (Winter): 161-192. McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters 32: L03710. Michaels, P. 1992. Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Michaels, P. 2000. The Satanic Gases. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Michaels, P. 2005a. Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Michaels, P. 2005b. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Michaels, P. 2009. Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Michaels, P. 2011. Climate Coup: Global Warming's Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Moore, K., et al. 2014. The Chain of Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama 's EPA. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Nature. 2013. The final assessment. Editorial. Nature 501 (7467 September): 281. NRC. 1998. National Research Council. Peer Review in Environmental Technology Development Programs: The Department of Energy's Office of Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2002. National Research Council. Knowledge and Diplomacy: Science Advice in the United Nations System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. PBL. 2010. Assessing an IPCC Assessment: An Analysis of Statements on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report. The Hague, Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Pielke Jr., R. 2010. The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pielke Jr., R., et al. 2009. Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. EOS90 (45): 413-414. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00070 47 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE Russell, M., Boulton, A.G., Clarke, P., Eyton, D., and Norton, J. 2010. The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review Report to the University of East Anglia. http:/ /www.cce-review.org/pdf/final%20report.pdf. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. Schiermeier, Q. 2014. IPCC report under fire. Nature 508 (7496 April): 298. doi: 10.1038/508298a. Seitz, F. 1996. A major deception on global warming. The Wall Street Journal (June 12). Singer, S.F., Revelle, R., and Starr, C. 1992. What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap. Cosmos: A Journal of Emerging Issues 5 (2 Summer). Singer, S.F. (Ed.) 1992. The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of IPCC Climate Assessment. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press. Singer, S.F. 1997. Rev. Ed. 1999. Hot Talk Cold Science. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. Singer, S.F. 1989. (Ed.) Global Climate Change. New York, NY: Paragon House. Solomon, L. 2008. The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. Washington, DC: Richard Vigilante Books. Stavins, R. 2014. Is IPCC government approval process broken? Website (author's blog). http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-govemment-approval-p rocess-broken-2/. Last viewed September 25, 2015. Toi, R. 2014. IPCC again. Website (author's blog). http://richardtol.blogspot.nl/2014/04/ipcc-again.html. 2015. Last viewed September 25, Vahrenholt, F. and Liining, S. 2015. The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe. Second English Edition. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. Weart, S. 2015. Climate change impacts: The growth of understanding. Physics Today (9 September): 46. doi: 10.1063/PT.3.2914. Wible, B. 2014. IPCC lessons from Berlin. Science 345 (6192 July): 34. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00071 48 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Bias Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias. Bias is another reason for disagreement among scientists and other writers on climate change. Scientists, no less than other human beings, bring their personal beliefs and interests to their work and sometimes make decisions based on them that direct their attention away from research findings that would contradict their opinions. Bias is often unconscious or overcome by professional ethics, but sometimes it leads to outright corruption. Park et al. (2014), in a paper published in Nature, summarized research on publication bias, careerism, data fabrication, and fraud to explain how scientists converge on false conclusions. They write, "Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers' behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting." Freedman (2010) identified a long list of reasons why experts are often wrong, including pandering to audiences or clients, lack of oversight, reliance on flawed evidence provided by others, and failure to take into account important confounding variables. John P.A. Ioannidis, professor of medicine and of health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, in a series of articles published in journals including the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), revealed most published research in the health care field cannot be replicated or is likely to be contradicted by later publications (Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b; Ioannidis and Trikalinos, 2005; Ioannidis, 2012). His most frequently cited work is titled "Why most published research findings are false." Ioannidis's work generated widespread awareness that peer review is no guarantee of the accuracy or value of a research paper. In fact, he found that the likelihood of research being contradicted was highest with the most prestigious journals, including Nature, Science, and JAMA. Springer, a major publisher of science journals, recently announced it was removing 16 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00072 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 49 papers it had published that were generated by a computer program called SCigen that were simply gibberish (Nature, 2014). Much to their credit, these journals and academic institutions claim to be engaged in considerable soul-searching and efforts to reform a peer-review process that is plainly broken. This controversy has particular relevance to the climate change debate due to "Climate gate," the release of emails exchanged by prominent climate scientists discussing efforts to exclude global warming skeptics from journals, punish editors who allowed skeptics' articles to appear, stonewall requests for original data, manipulate data, and rush into publication articles refuting or attempting to discredit scientists who disagree with IPCC's findings (Montford, 20 IO; Sussman, 20 IO; Michaels, 2011, Chapter 2). The scandal received little press attention in the United States. Journals such as Nature take the scandal over peer-review corruption seriously when it involves other topics (Ferguson et al., 2014 ), but are curiously silent about its occurrence in the climate change literature. Scientists, especially those in charge of large research projects and laboratories, have a financial incentive to seek more funding for their programs. They are not immune to having tunnel vision regarding the importance of their work and employment. Each believes his or her mission is more significant and essential relative to other budget priorities. To obtain funding (and more funding), it helps scientists immensely to have the public - and thus Congress and potentially private funders worried about the critical nature of the problems they study. This incentive makes it less likely researchers will interpret existing knowledge or present their findings in a way that reduces public concern (Lichter and Rothman, 1999; Kellow, 2007; Kabat, 2008). As a result, scientists often gravitate toward emphasizing worst-case scenarios, though there may be ample evidence to the contrary. This bias of alarmism knows no political bounds, affecting both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans (Berezow and Campbell, 2012; Lindzen, 2012). Alarmists in the climate debate seem to recognize only one possible source of bias, and that is funding from "the fossil fuel industry." The accusation permeates any conversation of the subject, perhaps second only to the "consensus" claim, and the two are often paired, as in "only scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus." The accusation doesn't work for many reasons: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00073 50 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING • There has never been any evidence of a climate scientist accepting money from industry to take a position or change his or her position in the climate debate (Cook, 2014); • Vanishingly few global warming skeptics have ever been paid by the fossil fuel industry. Certainly not more than a tiny fraction of the 31,478 American scientists who signed the Global Warming Petition or the thousands of meteorologists and climate scientists reported in Chapter 1 who tell survey-takers they do not agree with IPCC; • Funding of alarmists by government agencies, liberal foundations, environmental advocacy groups, and the alternative energy industry exceeds funding from the fossil fuel industry by two, three, or even four orders of magnitude (Butos and McQuade, 2015). Does government and interest-group funding of alarmists not also have a "corrupting" influence on its recipients? • The most prominent organizations supporting global warming skepticism get little if any money from the fossil fuel industry. Their support comes overwhelmingly from individuals (and their foundations) motivated by concern over the apparent corruption of science taking place and the enormous costs it is imposing on the public. In the text of her speech to the British House of Lords cited earlier, climate scientist Judith Curry wrote, "I am very concerned that climate science is becoming biased owing to biases in federal funding priorities and the institutionalization by professional societies of a particular ideology related to climate change. Many scientists, and institutions that support science, are becoming advocates for UN climate policies, which is leading scientists into overconfidence in their assessments and public statements and into failures to respond to genuine criticisms of the scientific consensus. In short, the climate science establishment has become intolerant to disagreement and debate, and is attempting to marginalize and de-legitimize dissent as corrupt or ignorant" (Curry, 2015). Money probably isn't what motivates Mike Hulme, now professor of climate and culture in the Department of Geography at King's College SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00074 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 51 London. He was professor of climate change m the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to IPCC reports, and he is author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Hulme, 2009). Hulme was cited in Chapter 1 admitting to great uncertainties in climate science, yet he eagerly endorses and promotes IPCC's claims. Why does he do that? In his book, Hulme calls climate change "a classic example of ... 'post-normal science,"' which he defines (quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz) as "the application of science to public issues where 'facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent."' Issues that fall into this category, he says, are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness. Instead of experimentation and open debate, post-normal science says "consensus" brought about by deliberation among experts determines what is true, or at least true enough for the time being to direct public policy decisions. The merits and demerits of post-normal science can be debated, but it undoubtedly has one consequence of significance in the climate change debate: Scientists are no longer responsible for actually doing science themselves, such as testing hypotheses, studying data, and confronting data or theories that contradict the "consensus" position. Scientists simply "sign onto" IPCC's latest report and are free to indulge their political biases. Hulme is quite open about his. He wrote, "The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us" (p. 326). In his book, Hulme says "because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs." Hulme describes himself as a social-democrat so his needs include sustainable development, income redistribution, population control, and social justice. By focusing on these "needs," how can Hulme objectively evaluate the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Like the late Stephen Schneider, who once said "to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change ... we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00075 52 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have" (Schneider, 1989), Hulme wrote, "We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise them in support of our projects." He suggests his fellow global warming alarmists promote four "myths," which he labels Lamenting Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel, and Celebrating Jubilee. This is unusual behavior for a scientist and disturbing for one working at high levels in IPCC. When Hulme talks about climate science, is he telling us the truth or one of his "myths"? *** While it would be ideal if scientists could be relied upon to deliver the unvarnished truth about complex scientific matters to governments and voters, the truth is they almost always fall short. Ignorance of research outside their area of specialization, reliance on flawed authorities, bias, and outright corruption all contribute to unwarranted alarmism in the climate change debate. References Berezow, A.B. and Campbell, H. 2012. Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left. Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs. Butos, W.N. and McQuade, T.J. 2015. Causes and consequences of the climate science boom. The Independent Review 20 (2 Fall): 165-196. Cook, R. 2014. Merchants of smear. Heartland Policy Brief (September). Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. Curry, J. 2015. State of the climate debate in the U.S. Remarks to the U.K. House of Lords, June 15. Climate Etc. Website. http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/15/state-of-the-climate-debate-in-the-u-s/. Last viewed on October 1, 2015. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., and Oransky, I. 2014. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature 515: 480-482. doi: 10.1038/515480a. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00076 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE 53 Freedman, D.H. 2010. Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us And How to Know When Not to Trust Them. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company. Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2005a. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 294: 218-228. Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2005b. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2: e124. Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2012. Scientific inbreeding and same-team replication: Type D personality as an example. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 73: 408-410. Ioannidis, J.P. and Trikalinos, T.A. 2005. Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58 (6 June): 543-549. Kabat, G.C. 2008. Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Kellow, A. 2007. Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Lichter, S.R. and Rothman, S. 1999. Environmental Cancer A Political Disease? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lindzen, R.S. 2012. Climate science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? Euresis Journal 2 (Winter): 161-192. Michaels, P. 2011. (Ed.) Climate Coup: Global Warming's Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Montford, A.W. 2010. Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. London, UK: Stacey International. Nature. 2014. Gibberish papers. [news item] Nature 507 (6): 13. Park, I-U., Peacey, M.W., and Munafo, M.R. 2014. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature 506 (6 February): 93-96. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00077 54 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Schneider, S. 1989. Interview. Discover (October). 45-48. Sussman, B. 2010. Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam. Washington, DC: Worldnet Daily. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00078 3 Scientific Method vs. Political Science Key findings of this section include the following: • The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. • The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability. • In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis's favor. The Missing Null Hypothesis Although IPCC's reports are voluminous and their arguments impressively persistent, it is legitimate to ask whether that makes them good science. In order to conduct an investigation, scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test. The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. 55 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00079 56 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING In considering any such hypothesis, an alternative and null hypothesis must be entertained, which is the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts. Regarding global warming, the null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. To invalidate this null hypothesis requires, at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Unless and until such evidence is adduced, the null hypothesis is assumed to be correct. In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible aq,,:rumentsin the hypothesis's favor. One probable reason for this behavior is that the United Nations protocol under which IPCC operates defines climate change as "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods" (United Nations, 1994, Article l.2). Not surprisingly, directing attention to only the effects ofhuman greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in IPCC failing to provide a thorough analysis of climate change. References United Nations. 1994. Framework convention on climate change. http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/ con vkp/ conveng. pdf. Models, Postulates, and Circumstantial Evidence IPCC offers three lines of reasoning in defense of its hypothesis: global climate model projections, a series of postulates or assumptions, and appeals to circumstantial evidence. The specific arguments are summarized in Figure 2. All three lines of reasoning depart from proper scientific methodology. Global climate models produce meaningful results only if we assume we already know perfectly how the global climate works, and most climate scientists say we do not (Bray and von Storch, 20 l O; Strengers, Verheggen, and Vringer, 2015). Moreover, it is widely recognized that climate models SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00080 SCIENTIFIC METHOD VS. POLITICAL SCIENCE 57 are not designed to produce predictions of future climate but rather what-if projections of many alternative possible futures (Trenberth, 2009). Figure 2 IPCC's Three Lines of Argument Global Climate Model Projections IPCC modelers assume Global Climate Models (GCMs) are based on a perfect knowledge of all climate forcings and feedbacks. They then assert: • A doubling of atmospheric CO 2 would cause warming ofup to 6°C. • Human-related CO 2 emissions caused an atmospheric warming of at least 0.3°C over the past 15 years. • Enhanced warming (a "hot spot") should exist in the upper troposphere in tropical regions. • Both poles should have warmed faster than the rest of Earth during the late twentieth century. Postulates Postulates are statements that assume the truth of an underlying fact that has not been independently confirmed or proven. IPCC postulates: • The warming of the twentieth century cannot be explained by natural variability. • The late twentieth century warm peak was of greater magnitude than previous natural peaks. • Increases in atmospheric CO 2 precede, and then force, parallel increases in temperature. • Solar forcings are too small to explain twentieth century warming. • A future warming of 2°C or more would be net harmful to the biosphere and human well-being. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00081 58 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Circumstantial Evidence Circumstantial evidence does not bear directly on the matter in dispute but refers to circumstances from which the occurrence of the fact might be inferred. IPCC cites the following circumstantial evidence: • Unusual melting is occurring in mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice, and polar icecaps. • Global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls. • Droughts, floods, and monsoon variability and intensity are increasing. • Global warming is leading to more, or more intense, wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. • Unusual melting of Boreal permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is causing warming due to methane release. Source: Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). Postulates, commonly defined as "something suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief," can stimulate relevant observations or experiments but more often are merely assertions that are difficult or impossible to test (Kahneman, 2011 ). IPCC expresses "great confidence" and even "extreme confidence" in its assumptions, but it cannot apply a statistical confidence level because they are statements of opinion and not of fact. This is not the scientific method. Circumstantial evidence, or observations, in science are useful primarily to falsify hypotheses and cannot prove one is correct (Popper, 1965, p. vii). It is relatively easy to assemble reams of "evidence" in favor of a point of view or opinion while ignoring inconvenient facts that would contradict it, a phenomenon called "confirmation bias." The only way to avoid confirmation bias is independent review of a scientist's work by other scientists who do not have a professional, reputational, or financial stake in whether the hypothesis is confirmed or disproven. As documented in Chapter 2, this sort of review is conspicuously absent in the climate change SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00082 SCIENTIFIC METHOD VS. POLITICAL SCIENCE 59 debate. Those who attempt to exercise it find themselves demonized, their work summarily rejected by academic journals, and worse. Facing such criticism of its methodology and a lack of compelling evidence of dangerous warming, IPCC's defenders often invoke the precautionary principle. The principle states: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" (United Nations, 1992, Principle 15). This is a sociological precept rather than a scientific one and lacks the intellectual rigor necessary for use in policy formulation (Goklany, 2001 ). The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of "full scientific certainty" but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility. The weight of evidence now leans heavily against the theory. Invoking the precautionary principle does not lower the required threshold for evidence to be regarded as valid, nor does it answer the most important questions about the causes and consequences of climate change. Scientific principles acknowledge the supremacy of experiment and observation and do not bow to instinctive feelings of alarm or claims of a supposed scientific "consensus" (Legates et al., 2015). The formulation of effective public environmental policy must be rooted in evidence-based science, not an over-abundance of precaution (More and Vita-More, 2013; U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2006). Contradictions about methodology and the verity of claimed facts make it difficult for unprejudiced lay persons to judge for themselves where the truth actually lies in the global warming debate. This is one of the primary reasons why politicians and commentators rely so heavily on supposedly authoritative statements issued by one side or another in the public discussion. Arguing from authority, however, is the antithesis of the scientific method. Attempting to stifle debate by appealing to authority hinders rather than helps scientific progress and understanding. References Bray, D. and von Storch, H. 2010. CliSci2008: A survey of the perspectives of climate scientists concerning climate science and climate change. GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH. http://ncseprojects.org/files/pub/polls/2010--Perspectives _of_ Climate_ Scientists _ Concerning_ Climate_ Science_ &_Climate_ Change_. pdf. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00083 60 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Goklany, I.M. 2001. The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Macmillan. Legates, D.R., Soon, W., Briggs, W.M., and Monckton, C. 2015. Climate consensus and 'misinfonnation': A rejoinder to 'Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change.' Science & Education 24 (3): 299-318. doi: 10.1007/sl 119-013-9647-9. More, M. and Vita-More, N. 2013. (Eds.) The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Popper, K. 1965. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Second edition. New York, NY: Harper and Row, Publishers. Strengers, B., Verheggen, B., and Vringer, K. 2015. Climate science survey questions and responses. April 10. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/ default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climatescience-survey-questions-and-responses _ 01731.pdf. Trenberth, K.E. 2009. Climate feedback: predictions of climate. Nature. Blog. April 11. U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2006. Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making. Seventh Report of Session 2005-06. http:/ /www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/ cmsctech/900/900-i.pdf. United Nations. 1992. Report of the United Nations conference on environmental development (Rio de Janeiro, June 3-14, 1992). http:/ /www.un.org/documents/ga/confl 51/aconfl 5126-lannexl .htm. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00084 4 Flawed Projections Key findings in this section include the following: • The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and virtually all the governments of the world depend on global climate models (GCMs) to forecast the effects of human-related greenhouse gas emissions on the climate. • GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide (CO2 ), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly modeled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter to their mission to find a human influence on climate. • The Nongovernmentallnternational Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) estimates a doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3. 7 wm- 2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~ l °C of prima facie warming. • Four specific forecasts made by GCMs have been falsified by real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has been no global warming for some 18 years. Why Computer Models Are Flawed In contrast to the scientific method, IPCC and virtually all national 61 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00085 62 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING governments in the world rely on computer models, called global climate models or GCMs, to represent speculative thought experiments by modelers who often lack a detailed understanding of underlying processes. The results of GCMs are only as reliable as the data and theories "fed" into them, which scientists widely recognize as being seriously deficient. If natural climate forcings and feedbacks are not perfectly understood, then GCMs become little more than an exercise in curve-fitting, or changing parameters until the outcomes match the modeler's expectations. As John von Neumann is reported to have once said, "with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" (Dyson, 2004). The science literature is replete with admissions by leading climate modelers that forcings and feedbacks are not sufficiently well understood, that data are insufficient or too unreliable, and that computer power is insufficient to resolve important climate processes. Many important elements of the climate system, including atmospheric pressure, wind, clouds, temperature, precipitation, ocean currents, sea ice, and permafrost, cannot be properly simulated by the current generation of models. The major known deficiencies include model calibration, non-linear model behavior, and the omission of important natural climate-related variability. Model calibration is faulty as it assumes all temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution has resulted from human CO 2 emissions. In reality, major human-related emissions commenced only in the mid-twentieth century. More facts about climate models and their limitations reported in Chapter 1 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science are reported in Figure 3. Figure 3 Key Facts about Global Climate Models • Climate models generally assume a climate sensitivity of 3 °C for a doubling of CO 2 above preindustrial values, whereas meteorological observations are consistent with a sensitivity of 1°C or less. • Climate models underestimate surface evaporation caused by increased temperature by a factor of 3, resulting in a consequential underestimation of global precipitation. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00086 FLAWED PROJECTIONS 63 • Climate infrared aerosols between • Deterministic climate models have inherent properties that make dynamic predictability impossible; introduction of techniques to deal with this (notably parameterization) introduces bias into model projections. • Limitations in computing power restrict climate models from resolving important climate processes; low-resolution models fail to capture many important regional and lesser-scale phenomena such as clouds. • Model calibration is faulty, as it assumes all temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution has resulted from human CO 2 emissions; in reality, major human-related emissions commenced only in the mid-twentieth century. • Non-linear climate models exhibit chaotic behavior. As a result, individual simulations ("runs") may show differing trend values. • Internal climate oscillations (AMO, PDO, etc.) are major features of the historic temperature record; climate models do not even attempt to simulate them. • Climate models fail to incorporate the effects of variations in solar magnetic field or in the flux of cosmic rays, both of which are known to significantly affect climate. models inadequately represent aerosol-induced changes in (IR) radiation, despite studies showing different mineral (for equal loadings) can cause differences in surface IR flux 7 and 25 wm- 2 • Source: "Chapter 1. Global Climate Models and Their Limitations," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013 ). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00087 64 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Forcings and Feedbacks The discussion in the previous section of why global climate models are flawed included references to some of the forcings and feedbacks that are poorly modeled and likely to make models unreliable. In many of these cases, climate scientists are substituting opinions or best guesses for data. As serious as that problem is, it is made worse by the exclusion of forcings and feedbacks that are well documented in the scientific literature. Many of these run counter to the goal of many modelers to find a human influence on climate and so are ignored. Among the forcings and feedbacks IPCC has failed to take into account are increases in low-level clouds in response to enhanced atmospheric water vapor, ocean emissions of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), and the presence and total cooling effect of both natural and industrial aerosols. These processes and others are likely to offset most or even all of any warming caused by rising CO 2 concentrations. Figure 4 summarizes these and other findings about forcings and feedbacks appearing in Chapter 2 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Figure 4 Key Facts about Temperature Forcings and Feedbacks • A doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of3.7 wm- 2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~ l °C of prima facie warming. • IPCC models stress the importance of positive feedback from increasing water vapor and thereby project warming of ~3-6°C, whereas empirical data indicate an order of magnitude less warming of ~0.3- l .0°C. • In ice core samples, changes in temperature precede parallel changes in atmospheric CO 2 by several hundred years; also, temperature and CO 2 are uncoupled through lengthy portions of the historical and geological records; therefore CO 2 cannot be the primary forcing agent for most temperature changes. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00088 FLAWED PROJECTIONS 65 • Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) levels for the past two decades fall well below the values projected by IPCC in its assessment reports. IPCC's temperature projections incorporate these inflated CH 4 estimates and need downward revision accordingly. • The thawing of permafrost or submarine gas hydrates is not likely to emit dangerous amounts of methane at current rates of warming. • Nitrous oxide (N 20) emissions are expected to fall as CO 2 concentrations and temperatures rise, indicating it acts as a negative climate feedback. • Other negative feedbacks on climate sens1tlv1ty that are either discounted or underestimated by IPCC include increases in low-level clouds in response to enhanced atmospheric water vapor, increases in ocean emissions of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), and the presence and total cooling effect of both natural and industrial aerosols. Source: "Chapter 2. Forcings and Feedbacks," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). Yet another deficiency in GCMs is that non-linear climate models exhibit chaotic behavior. As a result, individual simulations ("runs") may show differing trend values (Singer, 2013b ). Internal climate oscillations (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), etc.) are major features of the historic temperature record, yet GCMs do not even attempt to simulate them. Similarly, the models fail to incorporate the effects of variations in the solar magnetic field or in the flux of cosmic rays, both phenomena known to significantly affect climate. We conclude the current generation of GCMs is unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00089 66 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Failed Forecasts Four specific forecasts made by GCMs have been falsified by real-world data from a wide variety of sources: Failed Forecast #1: A doubling of atmospheric CO 2 would cause warming between 3°C and 6°C. The increase in radiative forcing produced by a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 is generally agreed to be 3.7 wm- 2 • Equating this forcing to temperature requires taking account of both positive and negative feedbacks. IPCC models incorporate a strong positive feedback from increasing water vapor but exclude negative feedbacks such as a concomitant increase in low-level clouds - hence they project a warming effect of3°C or more. IPCC ignores mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to CO 2 is much lower than its models assume (Spencer and Braswell, 2008; Lindzen and Choi, 20 l l ). Monkton et al. cited 27 peer-reviewed articles "that report climate sensitivity to be below current central estimates" (Monckton et al., 2015). Their list of sources appears in Figure 5. Figure 5 Research Finding Climate Sensitivity Is Less than Assumed by IPCC Michaels, P.J., Knappenberger, P.C., Frauenfeld, O.W., et al. 2002. Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research 23: 1-9. Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B.D., and Singer, S.F. 2004. Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: climate models versus observation. Geophysical Research Letters 31: Ll3208. doi: 10.1029/2004GL020103. Landscheidt, T. 2003. New Little Ice Age instead of global warming? Energy & Environment 14 (2): 327-350. Chylek, P. and Lohmann, U. 2008. Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters 35: L04804. doi: 10.1029/2007GL032759. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00090 FLAWED PROJECTIONS 67 Monckton of Brenchley, C. 2008. Climate sensitivity reconsidered. Physics & Society 37: 6-19. Douglass, D.H. and Christy, J.R. 2009. Limits on CO 2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of earth. Energy & Environment 20: 1-2. Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y-S. 2009. On the detennination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters 36: Ll6705. doi: 10.1029/2009GL039628. Spencer, R.W. and Braswell, W.D. 2010. On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: D16109. doi: 10.1029/2009JD013371. Annan, J.D. and Hargreaves, J.C. 2011. On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climate Change 104: 324-436. Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y-S. 2011 On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47: 377-390. Monckton of Brenchley, C. 2011. Global brightening and climate sensitivity. In: Zichichi, A. and Ragaini, R. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 45th Annual International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, World Federation of Scientists. London, UK: World Scientific. Schmittner, A., Urban, N.M., Shakun, J.D., et al. 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the last glacial maximum. Science 334: 1385-1388. doi: 10.l 126/science.1203513. Spencer, R.W. and Braswell, W.D. 2011. On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant-energy balance. Remote Sensing 3: 1603-1613. doi: 10.3390/rs3081603. Aldrin, M., Holden, M., Guttorp, P., et al. 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics 23: 253-271. doi: 10.1002/env.2140. Hargreaves, J.C., Annan, J.D., Yoshimori, M., et al. 2012. Can the last glacial maximum constrain climate sensitivity? Geophysical Research Letters 39: L24702. doi: 10.1029/2012GL053872. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00091 68 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Ring, M.J., Lindner, D., Cross, E.F., et al. 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2: 401-415. doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035. van Hateren, J.H. 2012. A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics 40: 2651-2670, doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1375-3. Lewis, N. 2013. An objective Bayesian improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate 26: 7414-7429. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1. Masters, T. 2013. Observational estimates of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models. Climate Dynamics 42: 2173-2181. doi: 101007/s00382-013-l 770-4. Otto, A., Otto, F.E.L., Boucher, 0., et al. 2013. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience 6: 415-416. diuLl 9, 1938/ngeo 1836. Spencer, R.W. and Braswell, W.D. 2013. The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a ID climate model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 50: 229-237. doi: 10.1007 /sl 3143-014-0011-z. Lewis, N. and Curry, J.A. 2014. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamics 10. doi: 1007/s00382-014-2342-y. Loehle, C. 2014. A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity. Ecological Modelling 276: 80-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.01.006. McKitrick, R. 2014. HAC-robust measurement of the duration of a trendless subsample in a global climate time series. Open Journal of Statistics 4: 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050. Monckton of Brenchley, C. 2014. Political science: drawbacks of apriorism in intergovernmental climatology. Energy & Environment 25: 1177-1204. Skeie, R.B., Berntsen, T., Aldrin, M., et al. 2015. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics 5: 139-175. doi: 10.5194/esd-5-139-2014. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00092 FLAWED PROJECTIONS 69 Lewis, N. 2015. Implications of recent multimodel attribution studies for climate sensitivity. Climate Dynamics doi: 10.1007 /s00382-015-2653- 7RSS. Source: Monckton, C., Soon, W. W-H., Legates, D.R., and Briggs, W.M. 2015. Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin 60 (15): 1378-1390, footnotes 7 to 33. Failed Forecast #2: CO 2 caused an atmospheric warming of at least 0.3°C over the past 15 years. The global climate models relied on by IPCC predicted an atmospheric warming of at least 0.3°C during the first 15 years of the twenty-first century, but temperatures did not rise at all during that period. Figure 6 shows global temperatures from 1997 to 2015, based on satellite data compiled and reported by Remote Sensing Systems and interpreted by Monckton et al. (2015). They show a trend of -0.01°C from January 1997 to June 2015. Figure 7, from Dr. John Christy's 2016 Congressional testimony, vividly portrays the failure ofGCMs to hindcast this trend. Figure 6 RSS Monthly Global Mean Lower-troposphere Temperature Anomalies, January 1997 to June 2015 Source: Monckton et al., 2015. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00093 70 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Figure 7. Failure of Climate Models to Hindcast Global Temperatures, 1979-2015 Averageof 102 IPCCCMIP-5 Climate Model runs IMi "C 0.4 ------1,f,tI [n.lBwll'IMIIIIINll .. :mt-mlM!y!"" --:----:-- ' .. --- Notes: Five-yearaveragedvalues ofannual mean (1979-2015) global bulk(termed "midtropospheric"or "MT") temperatureas depicted by the average of 102 IPCC CMIP5 climate models (red), the average of 3 satellite datasets UAH, RSS, NOAA (green), and 4 balloon datasets NOAA, UKMet, RICH, RAOBCORE (blue). Source: Christy, 2016. The absence of a warming trend for more than 15 years invalidates GCMs based on IPCC' s assumptions regarding climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide. In its 2008 State of the Climate report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported, "Near zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the models internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate" (Knight et al., 2009). This "discrepancy" now exists, indeed now extends to 18 years without warming, and the models have been invalidated. IPCC's authors compare the output of unforced (and incomplete) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00094 71 FLAWED PROJECTIONS models with a dataset that represents twentieth century global temperature (HadCRUT, British Meteorological Office). Finding a greater warming trend in the dataset than in model projections, the false conclusion is then drawn that this "excess" warming must be caused by human-related greenhouse forcing. In reality, no excess warming has been demonstrated, first because this line of argument assumes models have perfect knowledge, information, and power, which they do not, and second, because a wide variety of datasets other than the HadCRUT global air temperature curve favored by IPCC do not exhibit a warming trend during the second half of the twentieth century. See Figure 8. Figure 8 Lack of Evidence for Rising Temperatures The difference in surface temperatures between 1942-1995 and 1979-1997, as registered by datasets that represent land, oceanic, and atmospheric locations. LAND SURFACE Global (IPCC, HadCRUT) United States (GISS) +0.5° C ~zero OCEAN Sea surface temperature (SST) 1 SST Hadley NMA T ~zero ~zero ATMOSPHERE Satellite MSU (1979-1997) Hadley radiosondes ( 1979-1997) ~zero ~zero PROXIES Mostly land surface temperature 2 ~zero Unless otherwise indicated, data are drawn from the nominated government agencies. Source: 1Gouretski et al., 2012; 2Anderson et al., 2013. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00095 72 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Failed Forecast #3: A Thermal Hot Spot Should Exist in the Upper Troposphere in Tropical Regions Observations from both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite MSU sensors show the opposite, with either flat or decreasing warming trends with increasing height in the troposphere (Douglass et al., 2007; Singer, 2011; Singer, 2013a). In Figure 9, the image on the left is model simulations of temperature trends in the tropical mid-troposphere, as shown in figure l .3F from a report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Karl et al., 2006). The image shows a "hot spot" should occur in the upper troposphere in tropical regions. The image on the right is figure 5. 7E from the same source. It shows observed temperatures based on radiosonde data by the Hadley Centre, which are in good agreement with the corresponding U.S. analyses. The observed data do not show the temperature rise in the tropical mid-troposphere forecast by the model. Figure 9 Greenhouse-model-predicted Temperature Trends Versus Latitude and Altitude Versus Observed Temperature Trends PCM Slmul11tloo11 uf loMI-Millll'I Allnoeph•rlc:T11mjN!r11tum Cll11119e Alton::ing• 1M ·O ~ -0 l ~··········~ ·C .'... I~ I J) 0$ L--rc--1 Source: Karl et al., 2006, pp. 25, 116. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00096 FLAWED PROJECTIONS 73 Failed Forecast #4: Both Polar Regions Should Have Warmed Faster than the Rest of Earth During the Late Twentieth Century Late-twentieth century warming occurred in many Arctic locations and also over a limited area of the West Antarctic Peninsula, but the large polar East Antarctic Ice Sheet has been cooling since at least the 1950s (0 'Donnell et al., 2010). More data and commentary on this appears in Chapter 6. *** In general, GCMs perform poorly when their projections are assessed against empirical data. In their comprehensive report of an extensive test of contemporary climate models, Idso and Idso write, "we find (and document) a total of 2,418 failures of today's top-tier climate models to accurately hindcast a whole host of climatological phenomena. And with this extremely poor record of success, one must greatly wonder how it is that anyone would believe what the climate models of today project about earth's climate of tomorrow, i.e., a few decades to a century or more from now" (Idso and Idso, 2015). References Anderson, D., et al. 2013. Global warming in an independent record of the last 130 years. Geophysical Research Letters 40: 189-193, doi: 10.1029/2012GL054271. Christy, J.R. 2016. Testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology (February 2). https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/testimony-john-r-christy-addressin g-noaas-recent-temperature-claims. Douglass, D.H., Christy, J.R., Pearson, B.D., and Singer, S.F. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology 28: 1693-1701. doi: 10.1002/joc.1651. Dyson, F. 2004. A meeting with Enrico Fermi. Nature 427: 297. Gouretski, V.V., Kennedy, J. J. J., Boyer, T.P., and Kohl, A. 2012. Consistent near-surface ocean warming since 1900 in two largely independent observing SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00097 74 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING networks, Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1029/2012GL052975. Idso, S.B. and Idso, C.D. 2015. Mathematical Models vs. Real-World Data: Which Best Predicts Earth's Climatic Future? Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Karl, T.R., Hassol, S.J., Miller, C.D., and Murray, W.L. 2006. (Eds.) Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. A report by the Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change Research. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library /sap/sap 1-1/final report/ default.htm. Knight, J., Kennedy, J., Folland, C., Harris, G., Jones, G.S., Palmer, M., Parker, D., Scaife, A., and Stott, P. 2009. Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90 (2009): S22-S23. Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y.-S. 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47: 377-390. doi: 10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x. Mears C.A. and Wentz, F.J. 2009. Construction of the RSS V3.2 lower tropospheric dataset from the MSU and AMSU microwave sounders. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 26: 1493-1509. Monckton, C., Soon, W.W.-H, Legates, D.R., and Briggs, W.M. 2015. Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin 60 (15): 1378-1390. O'Donnell, R., Lewis, N., McIntyre, S., and Condon, J. 2010. Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction. Journal of Climate 24: 2099-2115. Singer, S.F. 2011. Lack of consistency between modelled and observed temperature trends. Energy & Environment 22: 375-406. Singer, S.F. 2013a. Inconsistency of modelled and observed tropical temperature trends. Energy & Environment 24: 405-413. Singer, S.F. 2013b. Overcoming chaotic behavior of general circulation climate models (GCMs). Energy & Environment 24: 397-403. Spencer, R.W. and Braswell, W.D. 2008. Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observations data: a simple model demonstration. Journal of Climate 21: 5624-5628. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00098 5 False Postulates Key findings in this section include the following: • Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability. • The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks. • Historically, increases in atmospheric CO 2 followed increases m temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO 2 levels could not have forced temperatures to rise. • Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming. In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO 2 in the atmosphere. • A warming of 2°C or more during the twenty-first century would probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change. Figure 2 in Chapter 3 identified five postulates at the base ofIPCC's claim that global warming has resulted, or will result, from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. All five are readily refuted by real-world observations. 75 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00099 76 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Modern Warming Is Not Unnatural IPCC's first false postulate is that the warming of the twentieth century cannot be explained by natural variability. But temperature records contain natural climate rhythms that are not well summarized or defined by fitting straight lines through arbitrary portions of a fundamentally rhythmic, non-stationary data plot. In particular, linear fitting fails to take account of meteorological-oceanographical-solar variations that are well established to occur at multidecadal and millennial time scales. Even assuming, wrongly, that global temperatures would have been unchanging in the absence of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, the correctness ofIPCC' s assertion depends upon the period of time considered (Davis and Bohling, 2001). For example, temperatures have been cooling since 8,000 and 2,000 years ago; warming since 20,000 years ago, and also since 1850; and static (no net warming or cooling) between 700 BC and 150 AD and since 1997 AD. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the variability of global temperatures during the past 2,000 and 10,000 years, respectively. Figure 10 Mean Relative Temperature History of the Globe -- 0.8 MWP (J • z:. •e 8 < 0.0 !• .0.4 ! Q. E ~ LIA -0,8 0 400 800 1200 1800 2000 Year(AD) Source: Loehle and McCulloch, 2008. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00100 77 FALSE POSTULATES ··-----~~~-'-'~"'' (l saaJSap),unie.,adwai ~ c:, 0 j.f> 00 r:• ':' 0 "' ai ":' ~ 0 ,, 0 "" 0 ';' 8... 0.... ';' ~ 0 0 <"i N l.l'! 0 ~ "? "CJ ~ SG :~:,. (\) 80l 0 9vf i'6v SS9 .. Cl\ ftS Ii) ~ r~ N 0 0 0 ... 0 OJ ~ .. ~ 'I"" 'I"" Q) I.. :::s -~ LL E ... 0 u ~ -·- ... a. - -..., (U ftS u u n, N "' J " ~ . 'i i::"--g & 0 .!: ., 12 OJ .: Q. C'\ .... 01,,1 i,., QI) OJ N 'Q .... ::s ...,.... 1,1) ... rt\ ? CJ C: V ~:, t.:)2 ~.., E ~ 0 - "' ~ e, >- l: i!' ~ C eE C: ~ i ~ia 1l 0 'II 0 C > s: ~.., CJ - ,a:j a: J - Q ~ ~ -~ './'t. > :5 0 tlO ori_ V, OJ <., C "'0 C lt8 066 9Stt von Z9St -• 6Ut 0 01'61 9tn 011'1 ... °" ns, ";; vlH 9TH' C QI ll6l' Htf A. e £tH f Z8C,£,2 LIS£ iS t>6Zt 3l ltOv f nst:,;;. tllV tlOS sas i"9SS S!i8S t>t'T9 ftS C OJ OJ C, ... Ztt9 fl1l9 £t0l G9fl SG9L GWS 58£8 8\1l8 OltG 681'6 5l6G ne •• 1in "'·,..)· 1,..........,,,,.) re (' 1··, , "V , , • ':,,!\,,},;.,.,le, t'l<,J\.J;1..} SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00101 78 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Global warming during the twentieth century occurred in two pulses, between 1910-1940 and 1975-2000, at gentle rates ofa little more than l.5°C/century (British Meteorological Office, 2013). In contrast, natural warming at some individual meteorological stations during the 1920s proceeded at rates ofup to 4°C/decade or more (Chylek et al., 2004). The first period (1910-1940), having occurred prior to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, must represent natural variability. Measurements made during the late twentieth century warming are likely exaggerated by inadequate correction for the urban heat island effect (DeLaat and Maurellis, 2004; McKitrick and Michaels, 2004, 2007). Modern Warming Is Not Unprecedented IPCC's second false postulate is that the late twentieth century warm peak was of greater magnitude than previous natural peaks. Comparison of modern and ancient rates of natural temperature change is difficult because of the lack of direct measurements available prior to 1850. However, high-quality proxy temperature records from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years demonstrate a natural range of warming and cooling rates between +2.5 and-2.5 °C/century (Alley, 2000; Carter, 2010, p. 46, Figure 7), significantly greater than rates measured for Greenland or the globe during the twentieth century. Glaciological and recent geological records contain numerous examples of ancient temperatures up to 3°C or more warmer than the peak reported at the end of the twentieth century. During the Holocene, such warmer peaks included the Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods (Alley, 2000). During the Pleistocene, warmer peaks were associated with interglacial oxygen isotope stages 5, 9, 11, and 31 (Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005). During the Late Miocene and Early Pliocene (6-3 million years ago) temperature consistently attained values 2-3°C above twentieth century values (Zachos et al., 2001). Figure 12 summarizes these and other findings about surface temperatures that appear in Chapter 4 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00102 FALSE POSTULATES 79 Figure 12 Key Facts about Surface Temperature • Whether today's global surface temperature is seen to be part of a warming trend depends upon the time period considered. • Over (climatic) time scales of many thousand years, temperature is cooling; over the historical (meteorological) time scale of the past century temperature has warmed. Over the past 18 years, there has been no net warming despite an increase in atmospheric CO 2 of 8 percent which represents 34 percent of all human-related CO 2 em1ss1ons released to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. • Given an atmospheric mixing time of~ 1 year, the facts just related represent a test of the dangerous warming hypothesis, which test it fails. • Based upon the HadCRUT dataset favored by IPCC, two phases of warming occurred during the twentieth century, between 1910-1940 and 1979-2000, at similar rates of a little more than l .5°C/century. The early twentieth century warming preceded major industrial carbon dioxide emissions and must be natural; warming during the second (prima facie, similar) period might incorporate a small human-related carbon dioxide effect, but warming might also be inflated by urban heat island effects. • Other temperature datasets fail to record the late twentieth century warming seen in the HadCRUT dataset. • There was nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late twentieth century warming pulses represented on the Had CRUT record, both falling well within the envelope of known, previous natural variations. • No empirical evidence exists to support the assertion that a planetary warming of2°C would be net ecologically or economically damaging. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00103 80 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Source: "Chapter 4. Observations: Temperatures," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). CO 2 Does Not Lead Temperature IPCC's third false postulate is that increases in atmospheric CO 2 precede, and then force, parallel increases in temperature. The remarkable (and at first blush, synchronous) parallelism that exists between rhythmic fluctuations in ancient atmospheric temperature and atmospheric CO 2 levels was first detected in polar ice core samples analyzed during the 1980s. From the early 1990s onward, however, higher-resolution sampling has repeatedly shown these historic temperature changes precede the parallel changes in CO 2 by several hundred years or more (Mudelsee, 2001; Monnin et al., 2001; Caillon et al., 2003; Siegenthaler et al., 2005). Ice core records show seven periods during which CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ) and temperature increased and then decreased. In all seven cycles, the reported changes in CO 2 and CH 4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (Soon, 2007). Early estimates (Revelle and Seuss, 1957) found temperature-caused out-gassing of ocean CO 2 increases atmospheric CO 2 concentrations by about 7% per EC of temperature rise; later laboratory testing placed it at about 5% (Petit et al., 1999). The relationship calculated from lab data and found in the ice core data is quantitatively perfect, meaning there is precisely the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere as a function of temperature over the 800,000-year ice core record that there should be in accordance with the ratio measured experimentally (Robinson, Robinson, and Soon, 2007). The only departure in the relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO 2 in the historical record is in the recent values, with CO 2 rising far beyond the temperature-dependent equilibrium value. This is because so much CO 2 is being put into the atmosphere from non-ocean sources. It will eventually revert to the equilibrium values, with the reversion occurring with a half life of about seven years, as has been determined by several investigators (Segalstad, 1998). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00104 FALSE POSTULATES 81 Solar Influence Is Not Minimal IPCC's fourth false postulate is that solar forcings are too small to explain twentieth century warming. Having concluded solar forcing alone is inadequate to account for twentieth century warming, IPCC authors infer CO 2 must be responsible for the remainder. Nonetheless, observations indicate variations occur in total ocean-atmospheric meridional heat transport and that these variations are driven by changes in solar radiation rooted in the intrinsic variability of the Sun's magnetic activity (Soon and Legates, 2013). Incoming solar radiation is most often expressed as Total Solar Insolation (TSI), a measure derived from multi-proxy measures of solar activity (Hoyt and Schatten, l 993; Willson, 20 l l; Scafetta and Willson, 2013). The newest estimates, from satellite-bomeACRIM-3 measurements, indicate TSI ranged between 1360 and 1363 wm- 2 between 1979 and 2011, the variability of ~3 wm- 2 occurring in parallel with the 11-year sunspot cycle. Larger changes in TSI are also known to occur in parallel with climatic change over longer time scales. For instance, Shapiro et al. (2011) estimated the TSI change between the Maunder Minimum and current conditions may have been as large as 6 wm- 2 • Temperature records from circum-Arctic regions of the Northern Hemisphere show a close correlation with TSI over the past 150 years, with both measures conforming to the ~60- 70-year multidecadal cycle. In contrast, the measured steady rise of CO 2 emissions over the same period shows little correlation with the strong multidecadal (and shorter) ups and downs of surface temperature around the world. Finally, IPCC ignores x-ray, ultraviolet, and magnetic flux variation, the latter having particularly important implications for the modulation of galactic cosmic ray influx and low cloud formation (Kirkby, et al., 2011). Figure 13 summarizes these and other findings about solar forcings from Chapter 3 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Figure 13 Key Facts about Solar Forcing • Evidence is accruing that changes in Earth's surface temperature are largely driven by variations in solar activity. Examples of SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00105 82 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING solar-controlled climate change epochs include the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Early Twentieth Century (1910-1940) Warm Period. • The Sun may have contributed as much as 66 percent of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more. • Strong empirical correlations have been reported from around the world between solar variability and climate indices including temperature, precipitation, droughts, floods, streamflow, and monsoons. • IPCC models do not incorporate important solar factors such as fluctuations in magnetic intensity and overestimate the role of human-related CO 2 forcing. • IPCC fails to consider the importance of the demonstrated empirical relationship between solar activity, the ingress of galactic cosmic rays, and the formation of low clouds. • The respective importance of the Sun and CO 2 in forcing Earth's climate remains unresolved; current climate models fail to account for a plethora of known Sun-climate connections. • The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades. Source: "Chapter 3. Solar Forcing of Climate," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). Warming Would Not Be Harmful IPCC's fifth false postulate is that warming of 2°C above today's temperature would be harmful. This claim was coined at a conference organized by the British Meteorological Office in 2005 (DEFRA, 2005). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00106 FALSE POSTULATES 83 The particular value of 2°C is entirely arbitrary and was proposed by the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental advocacy group, as a political expediency rather than as an informed scientific opinion. The target was set in response to concern that politicians would not initiate policy actions to reduce CO 2 emissions unless they were given a specific (and low) quantitative temperature target to aim for. Multiple lines of evidence suggest a 2°C rise in temperature would not be harmful to the biosphere. The period termed the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c. 8,000 ybp) was 2-3°C warmer than today (Alley, 2000), and the planet attained similar temperatures for several million years during the Miocene and Pliocene (Zachos et al., 2001 ). Biodiversity is encouraged by warmer rather than colder temperatures (Idso and Idso, 2009), and higher temperatures and elevated CO 2 greatly stimulate the growth of most plants (Idso and Idso, 2011 ). Figure 14 shows the substantial rise in world grain production since 1961, a trend that would seem unlikely if rising CO 2 levels produced more harms than benefits to the biosphere. Figure 14 World Grain Production, 1961-2012 2.500 -,-C: 0 2.000 '11 'C 'I :I 1.500 i;;; i 1.000 C: 0 I 1 .. 500 0. Source: Christy, 2016, citing U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Despite its widespread adoption by environmental NGOs, lobbyists, and governments, no empirical evidence exists to substantiate the claim that 2°C of warming presents a threat to planetary ecologies or human well-being. Nor can any convincing case be made that a warming will be more SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00107 84 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING economically costly than an equivalent cooling (either of which could occur for natural reasons), since any planetary change of 2°C magnitude in temperature would result in complex local and regional changes, some being of economic or environmental benefit and others being harmful. *** We conclude neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth's climatic history. Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2°C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful. References Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226. British Meteorological Office. 2013. Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets. CRUTEM4 Data. http:/ /www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/ download.html. Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J., and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Tennination III. Science 299: 1728-1731. Carter, R.M. 2010. Climate: The Counter Consensus. London, UK: Stacey International. Christy, J.R. 2016. Testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology (February 2). https:/ /www.heartland.org/policy-documents/testimony-john-r-christy-addressin g-noaas-recent-temperature-claims. Chylek, P., Figure, J.E., and Lesins, G. 2004. Global wanning and the Greenland ice sheet. Climatic Change 63: 201-221. Davis, J.C. and Bohling, G.C. 2001. The search for pattern in ice-core temperature curves. American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Studies in SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00108 FALSE POSTULATES 85 Geology 47: 213-229. DEFRA 2005. Symposium on avoiding dangerous climate change. Exeter, February 1- 3. http://www.stabilisation2005 .corn/. De Laat, A.T.J. and Maurellis, A.N. 2004. Industrial CO 2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends. Geophysical Research Letters 31. doi: 10.1029/2003GL019024. Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H. 1993. A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992. Journal of Geophysical Research 98: 18895-18906. Idso, C.D. and Idso, S.B. 2009. CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions: Prospects for the Future. Pueblo West, CO: Vales Lake Publishing. Idso, C.D. and Idso, S.B. 2011. The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment. Pueblo West, CO: Vales Lake Publishing. Kirkby, J. et al. 2011. Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation. Nature 476: 429-433. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C., and Thomson, D.J. 1990. Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Nature 343: 709-713. Lappi, D. 2016. 65 million years of cooling. JoNova.corn, last updated February 5. Website. http://joannenova.corn.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-rnillionyears-of-ternperature-swings/. Lisiecki, L.E. and Raymo, M.E. 2005. A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic d 180 records. Paleoceanography 20: PA1003. doi: 10.1029/2004PA001071. Loehle, C. and McCulloch, J.H. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy & Environment 19: 93-100. McKitrick, R. and Michaels, P .J. 2004. A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Climate Research 26: 159-173. McKitrick, R. and Michaels, P.J. 2007. Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research 112. doi: 10.1029/2007 JD008465. Monnin, E., Inderrniihle, A., Dallenbach, A., Fliickiger, J., Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D., and Bamola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO 2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291: 112-114. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00109 86 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO 2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589. Petit, J.R., et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436. Revelle, R. and Seuss, H.E. 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27. Robinson, A.R., Robinson, N.E., and Soon, W. 2007. Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12: 79-90. Scafetta, N. and Willson, R.C. 2013. Empirical evidences for a planetary modulation of total solar irradiance and the TSI signature of the 1.09-year Earth-Jupiter conjunction cycle. Astrophysics and Space Sciences 348: 25-39. Segalstad, T.V. 1998. In Bate, R. (Ed.) Global Warming the Continuing Debate Cambridge, UK: European Science and Environment Forum, 184-218. Shapiro, A.I., Schmutz, W., Rozanov, E., Schoell, M., Haberreiter, M., Shapiro, A.V., and Nyeki, S. 2011. A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to a large historical solar forcing. Astronomy and Astrophysics 529: A67. Siegenthaler, U., et al. 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310: 1313-1317. Soon, W. 2007. Implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide and methane forcing in climate change: Past, present, and future. Physical Geography 28: 97-125. Soon, W. and Legates, D.R. 2013. Solar irradiance modulation of equator-to-pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 93: 45-56. Willson, R.C. 2011. Revision of ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 TSI results based on LASP/TRF diagnostic test results for the effects of scattering, diffraction and basic SI scale traceability. Abstract for 2011 Fall AGU Meeting (Session GC21). Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., and Billups, K. 2001. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292: 686-693. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00110 6 Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence Key points in this chapter include the following: • Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at "unnatural" rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact on climate. • Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability - in some places rising and in others falling. • The link between warming and drought is weak, and by some measures drought has decreased over the twentieth century. Changes in the hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a closer correlation with multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do with global temperature. • No convincing relationship has been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events. Meteorological science suggests just the opposite: A warmer world will see more mild weather patterns. • No evidence exists that current changes in Arctic permafrost are other than natural or are likely to cause a climate catastrophe by releasing 87 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00111 88 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING methane into the atmosphere. Introduction IPCC's third line of reasoning, summarized in Figure 2 in Chapter 3, consists of circumstantial evidence regarding natural phenomena known to vary with temperature. The examples IPCC chooses to report invariably point to a negative impact on plant and animal life and human well-being. When claims are made that such phenomena are the result of anthropogenic global warming, almost invariably at least one of the following three requirements of scientific confidence is lacking: (1) Correlation does not establish causation. Correlation of, say, a declining number of polar bears and a rising temperature does not establish causation between one and the other, for it is not at all unusual for two things to co-vary in parallel with other forcing factors. (2) Control for natural variability. We live on a dynamic planet in which all aspects of the physical and biological environment are in a constant state of flux for reasons that are entirely natural (including, of course, temperature change). It is wrong to assume no changes would occur in the absence of the human presence. Climate, for example, will be different in 100 years regardless of what humans do or don't do. (3) Local temperature records that confirm warming. Many studies of the impact of climate change on wildlife simply assume temperatures have risen, extreme weather events are more frequent, etc., without establishing that the relevant local temperature records conform to the postulated simple long-term warming trend. All five ofIPCC' s claims relying on circumstantial evidence listed in Figure 2 in Chapter 3 are refutable. Melting Ice IPCC claims unusual melting is occurring in mountain glaciers, Arctic sea SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00112 UNRELIABLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 89 ice, and polar icecaps. But what melting is occurring in mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice, and polar icecaps is not occurring at "unnatural" rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact on the climate. Both the Greenland (Johannessen et al., 2005; Zwally et al., 2005) and Antarctic (Zwally and Giovinetto, 20 l l) icecaps are close to balance. The global area of sea ice today is similar to that first measured by satellite observation in 1979 (Humlum, 2013) and significantly exceeds the ice cover present in former, warmer times. Valley glaciers wax and wane on multidecadal, centennial, and millennial time-scales, and no evidence exists that their present, varied behavior falls outside long-term norms or is related to human-related CO 2 emissions (Easterbrook, 201 l). Figure 15 summarizes the findings of Chapter 5 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science regarding glaciers, sea ice, and polar icecaps. Figure 15 Key Facts about the Cryosphere • Satellite and airborne geophysical datasets used to quantify the global ice budget are short and the methods involved in their infancy, but results to date suggest both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are close to balance. • Deep ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland show climate change occurs as both major glacial-interglacial cycles and as shorter decadal and centennial events with high rates of warming and cooling, including abrupt temperature steps. • Observed changes in temperature, snowfall, ice flow speed, glacial extent, and iceberg calving in both Greenland and Antarctica appear to lie within the limits of natural climate variation. • Global sea-ice cover remains similar in area to that at the start of satellite observations in l 979, with ice shrinkage in the Arctic Ocean since then being offset by growth around Antarctica. • During the past 25,000 years (late Pleistocene and Holocene) glaciers SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00113 90 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING around the world have fluctuated broadly in concert with changing climate, at times shrinking to positions and volumes smaller than today. • This fact notwithstanding, mountain glaciers around the world show a wide variety of responses to local climate variation and do not respond to global temperature change in a simple, uniform way. • Tropical mountain glaciers in both South America and Africa have retreated in the past I 00 years because of reduced precipitation and increased solar radiation; some glaciers elsewhere also have retreated since the end of the Little Ice Age. • The data on global glacial history and ice mass balance do not support the claims made by IPCC that CO 2 emissions are causing most glaciers today to retreat and melt. Source: "Chapter 5. Observations: The Cryosphere," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). Sea-Level Rise IPCC claims global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls. But the best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating (Houston and Dean, 2011 ). The global average sea level continues to increase at its long-term rate of 1-2 mm/year globally (Woppelmann et al., 2009). Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability - in some places rising and in others falling. Unusual sea-level rise is therefore not drowning Pacific coral islands, nor are the islands being abandoned by "climate refugees." The best available data show dynamic variations in Pacific sea level vary in accord with El Niiio-La Niiia cycles, superimposed on a natural long-term eustatic rise (Australian Bureau of Meteorology, 2011 ). Island coastal flooding results not from sea-level rise, but from spring tides or storm surges in combination with development pressures such as borrow pit digging or groundwater withdrawal. Persons emigrating from the islands are SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00114 UNRELIABLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 91 doing so for social and economic reasons rather than m response to environmental threat. Another claim concerning the effect of climate change on oceans is that increases in freshwater runoff into the oceans will disrupt the global thermohaline circulation system. But the range of natural fluctuation in the global ocean circulation system has yet to be fully delineated (Srokosz et al., 2012). Research to date shows no evidence for changes that lie outside previous natural variability, nor for any malign influence from increases in human-related CO 2 emissions. See Figure 16 for more findings about climate change and oceans from Chapter 6 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Figure 16 Key Facts about Oceans • Knowledge of local sea-level change is vital for coastal management; such change occurs at widely variable rates around the world, typically between about +5 and -5 mm/year. • Global (eustatic) sea level, knowledge of which has only limited use for coastal management, rose at an average rate of between 1 and 2 mm/ year over the past century. • Satellite altimeter studies of sea-level change indicate rates of global rise since 1993 of more than 3 mm/year, but complexities of processing and the infancy of the method preclude viewing this result as secure. • Rates of global sea-level change vary in decadal and multidecadal ways and show neither recent acceleration nor any simple relationship with increasing CO 2 emissions. • Pacific coral atolls are not being drowned by extra sea-level rise; rather, atoll shorelines are affected by direct weather and infrequent high tide events, ENSO sea-level variations, and impacts of increasing human populations. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00115 92 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING • Extra sea-level rise due to heat expansion (thermosteric rise) is also unlikely given that the Argo buoy network shows no significant ocean warming over the past nine years (Knox and Douglass, 2010). • Though the range of natural variation has yet to be fully described, evidence is lacking for any recent changes in global ocean circulation that lie outside natural variation or were forced by human CO 2 em1ss1ons. Source: "Chapter 6. Observations: The Hydrosphere," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). Droughts, Floods, and Monsoons IPCC claims droughts, floods, and monsoon variability and intensity are increasing. But the link between warming and drought is weak, and pan evaporation (a measurement that responds to the effects of several climate elements) decreased over the twentieth century (Roderick et al., 2009). Huntington (2008) concluded on a globally averaged basis precipitation over land increased by about 2 percent over the period 1900-1998. However, changes in the hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a closer correlation with multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do with global temperature (Zanchettin et al., 2008). Figure 17 shows the absence of a trend toward more drought conditions between 1982 and 2012. Monsoon intensity correlates with variations in solar activity rather than increases in atmospheric CO 2 , and both the South American and Asian monsoons became more active during the cold Little Ice Age and less active during the Medieval Warm Period (Vuille et al., 2012), suggesting there would be less volatility if the world becomes warmer. See Figure 18 for more facts about monsoons, droughts, and floods presented in Chapter 6 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00116 93 UNRELIABLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Figure 17 Global Areal Extent of Five Levels of Drought for 1982-2012 ,11101101 Ul llli Notes: Dryness is indicated in percentile rankings with DO< 30, D 1 < 20, D2 < 10, D3 < 5 and D4 < 2 percentile of average moisture availability. Source: Christy, 2016, citing Hao et al., 2014. Figure 18 Key Facts about Monsoons, Droughts, and Floods • Little evidence exists for an overall increase in global precipitation during the twentieth century independent of natural multidecadal climate rhythmicity. • Monsoon precipitation did not become more variable or intense during late twentieth century warming; instead, precipitationresponded mostly to variations in solar activity. • South American and Asian monsoons were more active during the cold Little Ice Age and less active during the Medieval Warm Period. Neither global nor local changes in streamflow have been linked to CO 2 em1ss1ons. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00117 94 • WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING The relationship between drought and global warming is weak, since severe droughts occurred during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Source: "Chapter 6. Observations: The Hydrosphere," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). Extreme Weather IPCC does not object when persons, such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, cite its reports in support of claims that global warming is leading to more, or more intense, wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. IPCC's latest Summary for Policymakers is filled with vivid warnings of this kind, even though in 2012 an IPCC report acknowledged that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated (IPCC, 2012). In no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme weather events (Alexander et al., 2006; Khandekar, 2013; Pielke Jr., 2014). Instead, the number and intensity of extreme events vary, and they wax and wane from one place to another and often in parallel with natural decadal or multidecadal climate oscillations. Basic meteorological science suggests a warmer world would experience fewer storms and weather extremes, as indeed has been the case in recent years. Figure 19 shows there has been no trend toward more days of extreme heat in the U.S. since 1895. Figure 20 summarizes key facts on this subject presented in Chapter 7 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00118 UNRELIABLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 95 Figure 19 Average Number of Daily High Temperatures in the U.S. Exceeding 100°F per year 1895-2014 Notes: Average from 982 stationsof the USHCNdatabase (NOAA/NCEI,prepared by JRChristy). Source: Christy, 2016. Figure 20 Key Facts about Extreme Weather Events • Air temperature variability decreases as mean air temperature rises, on all time scales. • Therefore the claim that global warming will lead to more extremes of climate and weather, including of temperature itself, seems theoretically unsound; the claim is also unsupported by empirical evidence. • Although specific regions have experienced significant changes in the intensity or number of extreme events over the twentieth century, for the globe as a whole no relationship exists between such events and global warming over the past 100 years. • Observations from across the planet demonstrate that droughts have not become more extreme or erratic in response to global warming. In most SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00119 96 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING cases, the worst droughts in recorded meteorological history were much milder than droughts that occurred periodically during much colder times. • There is little to no evidence that precipitation will become more variable and intense in a warming world; indeed some observations show just the opposite. • There has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of stormy weather in the modern era. • Despite the supposedly "unprecedented" warming of the twentieth century, there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally or in any of the specific ocean basins. • The commonly held perception that twentieth century warming was accompanied by an increase in extreme weather events is a misconception fostered by excessive media attention and has no basis in facts. Source: "Chapter 7. Observations: Extreme Weather," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013). Thawing Permafrost IPCC claims unusual thawing of Boreal permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is causing warming due to methane release. It is true that over historic time, atmospheric methane concentration has increased from about 700 ppb in the eighteenth century to the current level of near 1,800 ppb. However, the increase in methane concentration levelled offbetween 1998 and 2006 at around 1,750 ppb, which may reflect measures taken at that time to stem leakage from wells, pipelines, and distribution facilities (Quirk, 2010). More recently, since about 2007, methane concentrations have started to increase again, possibly due to a combination of leaks from new SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00120 UNRELIABLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 97 shale gas drilling and Arctic permafrost decline. The contribution of increased methane to radiative forcing since the eighteenth century is estimated to be only 0. 7 wm-2, which is small. And in any case, no evidence exists that current changes in Arctic permafrost are other than natural. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even one thousand years. *** We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO 2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely. References Alexander, L.V., Zhang, X., Peterson, T.C., Caesar, J., Gleason, B., Klein Tank, A.M.G., Haylock, M., Collins, D., Trewin, B., Rahimzadeh, F., Tagipour, A., Rupa Kumar, K., Revadekar, J., Griffiths, G., Vincent, L., Stephenson, D.B., Burn, J., Aguilar, E., Brunet, M., Taylor, M., New, M., Zhai, P., Rusticucci, M., and Vazquez-Aguirre, J.L. 2006. Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006290. Australian Bureau of Meteorology. 2011. The South Pacific sea-level and climate monitoring program. Sea-level summary data report, July 2010-June 2011. http:/ /www.bom.gov .au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2011 _ 1.pdf. Christy, J.R. 2016. Testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology (February 2). https:/ /www.heartland.org/policy-documents/testimony-john-r-christy-addressin g-noaas-recent-temperature-claims. Easterbrook, D.J. (Ed.) 2011. Evidence-based Climate Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc. Hao, Z., AghaKouchak, A., Nakhjiri, N., and Farahmand, A. 2014. Global SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00121 98 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING integrated drought monitoring and prediction system. Scientific Data 1: 10.1038/sdata.2014.1. Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G. 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research 27: 409-417. Humlum, 0. 2013. Monthly Antarctic, Arctic and global sea ice extent since November 1978, after National Snow and Ice Data Center, USA. http://www.climate4you.com/. Huntington, T.G. 2008. Can we dismiss the effect of changes in land-based water storage on sea-level rise? Hydrological Processes 22: 717-723. IPCC. 2012. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).http://ipccwg2.gov/SREX/report/. Johannessen, O.M., Khvorostovsky, K., Miles, M.W., and Bobylev, L.P. 2005. Recent ice-sheet growth in the interior of Greenland. Science 310: 1013-1016. Khandekar, M.L. 2013. Are extreme weather events on the rise? Energy & Environment 24: 537-549. Knox, R.S. and Douglass, D.H. 2010. Recent energy balance of Earth. International Journal of Geosciences 1. doi: 10.4236/ijg2010.00000. Pielke Jr., R.A. 2014. The Righ(ful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes. Quirk, T. 2010. Twentieth century sources of methane in the atmosphere. Energy & Environment 21: 251-266. Roderick, M.L., Hobbins, M.T., and Farquhar, G.D. 2009. Pan evaporation trends and the terrestrial water balance. II. Energy balance and interpretation. Geography Compass 3: 761-780. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.0021. Srokosz, M., Baringer, M., Bryden, H., Cunningham, S., Delworth, T., Lozier, S., Marotzke, J., and Sutton, R. 2012. Past, present, and future changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 93: 1663-1676. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00151.1. Vuille, M., Burns, S.J., Taylor, B.L., Cruz, F.W., Bird, B.W., Abbott, M.B., Kanner, L.C., Cheng, H., and Novello, V.F. 2012. A review of the South American monsoon history as recorded in stable isotopic proxies over the past SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00122 UNRELIABLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 99 two millennia. Climate of the Past 8: 1309-1321. Woppelmann, G., Letetrel, C., Santamaria, A., Bouin, M.-N., Collilieux, X., Altamimi, Z., Williams, S.D.P., and Miguez, B.M. 2009. Rates of sea-level change over the past century in a geocentric reference frame. Geophysical Research Letters 36. doi: 10.1029/2009GL038720. Zanchettin, D., Franks, S.W., Traverso, P., and Tomasino, M. 2008. On ENSO impacts on European wintertime rainfalls and their modulation by the NAO and the Pacific multi-decadal variability. International Journal of Climatology 28: 1995-1006. doi: 10.1002/joc.1601. Zwally, H.J. and Giovinetto, M.B. 2011. Overview and assessment of Antarctic Ice-Sheet mass balance estimates: 1992-2009. Surveys in Geophysics 32: 351-376. Zwally, H.J., Giovinetto, M.B., Li, J., Cornejo, H.G., Beckley, M.A., Brenner, A.C., Saba, J.L., and Yi, D. 2005. Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992-2002. Journal of Glaciology 51: 509-527. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00123 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 7 Policy Implications Key findings in this section include the following: • Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest. • Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography, geology, weather, and culture. • Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to turn their attention to the real problems their people and their planet face. To date, most government signatories to the UN' s Framework Convention on Climate Change have deferred to the monopoly advice of IPCC in setting their national climate change policies. Nearly 30 years since IPCC began its work in 1988, it is now evident this approach has been mistaken. One result has been the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars implementing energy policies that now appear to have been unnecessary, or at least ill-timed and ineffective. Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, 101 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00125 102 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts ofinterest. The Chinese Academy of Sciences took an important step in this direction by translating and publishing an abridged edition of the first two volumes in NIPCC's Climate Change Reconsidered series (CAS, 2013). Climate change, whether man-made or not, is a global phenomenon with very different effects on different parts of the world (Tol, 2011). Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography, geology, weather, and culture - as India has started to do by setting up an advisory Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment(IN CCCA) (Nelson, 2010). The theoretical hazard of dangerous human-caused global warming is but one small part of a much wider climate hazard - extreme natural weather and climatic events that Nature intermittently presents us with, and always will (Carter, 2010). The 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster in the United States, the 2007 floods in the United Kingdom, and the tragic bushfires in Australia in 2009 demonstrate the governments of even advanced, wealthy countries are often inadequately prepared for climate-related disasters of natural origin. Climate change as a natural hazard is as much a geological as a meteorological issue. Geological hazards are mostly dealt with by providing civil defense authorities and the public with accurate, evidence-based information regarding events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, storms, and floods (which represent climatic as well as weather events), and then planning to mitigate and adapt to the effects when such events occur. The idea that there can be a one-size-fits-all global solution to address future climate change, such as recommended by the United Nations in the past, fails to deal with real climate and climate-related hazards. It also turned climate change into a political issue long before the science was sufficiently advanced to inform policymakers. A better path forward was suggested by Ronald Brunner and Amanda Lynch: "We need to use adaptive governance to produce response programs that cope with hazardous climate events as they happen, and that encourage diversity and innovation in the search for solutions. In such a fashion, the highly contentious 'global warming' problem can be recast into an issue in which every culture and community around the world has an inherent interest" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00126 POLICY IMPLICATIONS 103 (Brunner and Lynch, 2010). There is some evidence world leaders are reconsidering past decisions. China, India, Russia, and other countries are making it clear they will not blindly follow the path of reducing the use of fossil fuels in the vain hope of having an almost indiscernible effect on climate some time in the twenty-second or twenty-third centuries. A writer for Nature, commenting before the December 2015 Conference of the Parties (COP-21) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, reported in May 2015, The negotiations' goal has become what is politically possible, not what is environmentally desirable. Gone is a focus on establishing a global, "top down" target for stabilizing emissions of a carbon budget that is legally binding. The Paris meeting will focus on voluntary 'bottom up' commitments by individual states to reduce emissions. The global climate target is being watered down in the hope of getting any agreement in Paris. The 2°C warming limit need only be kept "within reach." The possibility of using "ratcheting mechanisms" keeps hopes alive of more ambitious policies, but such systems are unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes. Strict measuring, reporting and verification mechanisms are yet to be agreed (Geden, 2015, p. 27). Michael Levi, a senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in June 2015 about the changing expectations of world leaders. His points in brief: ( 1) Developed countries are no longer pushing for binding emissions reduction commitments, whether for themselves or developing countries; (2) the emphasis has shifted from reducing emissions in order to mitigate future climate change to helping nations adapt to whatever the future climate might look like; (3) the goals declared at the UN's next meeting (in Paris in December 2015) will be too far in the future to matter to anyone; and (4) the widely discussed pledge of giving developing countries $100 billion a year is going to consist largely of relabeling foreign aid and private funding already going to those countries (Levi, 2015). IfGeden's and Levi's observations are true, this is all very good news indeed. The world appears to be backing away from a disaster of its own making, caused by lobbyists and campaigners and interest groups steering public policy in the wrong direction. Policymakers should recognize that the human impact on the global SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00127 104 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING climate remains a scientific puzzle, perhaps the most difficult one science has ever faced. The scientific debate is far from over. Despite appeals to a "scientific consensus" and claims from even the president of the United States that "climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous," the truth is we simply don't know if climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed. The best available evidence points in a different direction: The human impact on climate is small relative to natural variability, perhaps too small to be measured. Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to tum their attention to the real problems their people and their planet face. References Brunner, R.D. and Lynch, A.H. 2010. Adaptive Governance and Climate Change. Boston, MA: Meteorological Society of America. Carter, R.M. 2010. Climate: The Counter Consensus. London, UK: Stacey International. CAS. 2013. Chinese Academy of Science. Climate Change Reconsidered. Chinese language edition translated by China Information Center for Global Change Studies, www.globalchange.ac.cn, and published by Science Press. Geden, 0. 2015. Climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature 521 (7550 May): 27-28. Levi, M. 2015. What matters (and what doesn't) in the 07 climate declaration. Website, Council on Foreign Relations (June 10). http:/ /blogs.cfr.org/levi/2015/06/1 0/what-Imtters-and-what-doesnt-in-the-g7-cli mate-declaration/. Last viewed on October 30, 2015. Nelson, D. 2010. India forms new climate change body. The Telegraph (UK). February 4, 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ environment/climatechange/715 7 590/India- fonns-new-climate. change-body .html. Toi, R. 2011. The Social Cost of Carbon. Annual Review of Resource Economics 3 (October): 419-443. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-120028. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00128 Conclusion The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence and disagreements over how to interpret data and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias. Probably the only "consensus" among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals. In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis - that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions - is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis's favor. It simply ignores the alternative and null hypothesis, amply supported by empirical research, that currently observed changes in global climate 105 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00129 106 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories "fed" into them. Most climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC's estimate for climate sensitivity to CO 2 is too high. We estimate a doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3. 7 W m-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~ 1°C of prima facie warming. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades. In a similar fashion, all five ofIPCC's postulates, or assumptions, are readily refuted by real-world observations, and all five ofIPCC's claims relying on circumstantial evidence are refutable. For example, in contrast to IPCC's alarmism, we find neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth's climatic history. In any case, such evidence cannot be invoked to "prove" a hypothesis, but only to disprove one. IPCC has failed to refute the null hypothesis that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest. NIPCC's conclusion, drawn from its extensive review of the scientific evidence, is that any human global climate impact is within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous. In the face of such facts, the most prudent climate policy is to prepare for and adapt to extreme climate events and changes regardless of their origin. Adaptive planning for future hazardous climate events and change should be tailored to provide responses to the known rates, magnitudes, and risks of natural change. Once in place, these same plans will provide an adequate response to any human-caused change that may or may not emerge. Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority ofIPCC to claim to speak for "climate science." The distinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington wrote in 1941, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00130 CONCLUSION 107 It is ... important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true (Waddington, 1941). This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert the fashionable belief, in the face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary, that human CO 2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warmmg. Reference Waddington, C.H. 1941. The Scientific Attitude. London, UK: Penguin Books. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00131 About the Authors Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (2011) and CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reef~ (2009). He earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University, where he lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology. Dr. Robert M. Carter was a stratigrapher and marine geologist with degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and University of Cambridge (England). He was the author of Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change (2013). Carter's professional service included terms as head of the Geology Department, James Cook University, chairman of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council, chairman of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, and director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program. He passed away in January 2016. Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists in the United States. He established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. He is coauthor, with Dennis T. Avery, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years (2007, second ed. 2008) and many other books. Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville from 1971 to 1994 and is founder and chairman of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. 108 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00132 AboutNIPCC The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel ofnongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary. NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer's retirement from the University of Virginia. NIPCC is currently a joint project of SEPP, The Heartland Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. NIPCC has produced eight reports to date: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts Scientific Critique of IPCC 's 2013 'Summary for Policymakers' Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming These publications and more information about NIPCC are available at www.climatechangereconsidered.org. 109 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00133 About The Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. We are a publicly supported charitable organization and tax exempt under Section 50 l (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Heartland is approximately 5,500 men and women funding a nonprofit research and education organization devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.We believe ideas matter, and the most important idea in human history is freedom. Heartland has a full-time staff of 39. Joseph Bast is cofounder, president, and CEO. Dr. Herbert Walberg is chairman of the IO-member Board of Directors. Approximately 250 academics participate in the peer review of its publications and more than 200 elected officials pay annual dues to serve on its Legislative Forum. Heartland has a long and distinguished history of defending freedom. We are widely regarded as a leading voice in national and international debates over budgets and taxes, environmental protection, health care, school reform, and constitutional reform. Five centers at The Heartland Institute conduct original research to find new ways to solve problems, turn good ideas into practical proposals for policy change, and then effectively promote those proposals to policymakers and the public. For more information, visit our website at www.heartland.org, call 312/377-4000, or visit us at 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois. 110 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00134 $6.95 ''Probablythe most widely repeatedclaim in the debateover globalwanning is that '97% of scientistsagree' that climate changeis man-madeand dangerous.This claim is not onlyfalse, but its presencein the debate is an insultto science." With these words. the distinguished aLtthors of \Nhy Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: 7ne NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus begin a detailed analysis of one of the rnost controversial topics of the day. Do most scientists agree on the causes and oonsequences of clirnate change? Is it really onty a small fringe of the scientific community that believes global warming is not a crisis? The authors make a crnnpelling case against claims of a scientific consensus. The purported proof of such a consensus consists of sloppy research by nonscientists, college students, and a highly partisan Australian blogger. Surveys of climate scientists. even those heavily biased in favor of climate atarmism, find extensive disagreement on the undef'fying science and doubts about its reliability. Why do scientists disagree? The authors point to four reasons: a conflict among scientists in different and often competing disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how 1he global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC} to provide objective gL1idance to the co,nplex science; and bias arr1ong researchers. What does the science actually say about global wanning? The authors offer a succinct sumrnary of the real science of clitnate change based on their previously published comprehensive review of climate science in a volume titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. They recomrnend policymakers resist pressure frorn lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of IPCC to claim to speak for ''climate science." They conclude with a quotation frorn the d~stinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington: It is ... important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to tum out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judg,nent about facts to be distorted by idea.s of what ought to be tJue, or what one may hope to be true. CRAIG O. 10SO. Ph.D .• a climatologist. is one of the world's leading experts on the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life and is chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Olange. ROBERT M. CARTER. Ph.D., a geologist and environmental scientist. was emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs in London and author of Clin1ate Change: The Counter Consensus (London: Stacey International, 2010). He died in January 2016 at the age of 74. S. FRED SINGER. Ph.D., a physicist. is chainnan of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE )II 3939 NC>RH-f WILKE HOAD ARLINGTON l• E!Gt • "fS, tLUNOIS HEAAT (.AN(:).OAG 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000002-00135 From: Joseph Bast Fri 6/16/2017 10:58:25 PM This is the best essay on climate change published so far in 2017: To Put America First Is to Put Our Planet's Climate First Sent: Subject: This is the most complete, accurate, and persuasive answer to climate change alarmism to be published so far in 2017. Congratulations to the authors, Willie Soon and Istvan Marko, and those who helped. Have a great weekend! Joe http://www.breitbart.com/big-govemment/2017 /06/16/america-first-climate/ MARKO, SOON, ET AL: To Put America First Is to Put Our Planet's Climate First by Willie Soon and Istvan Mark616 Jun 201723 The article below was contributed by Istvan Marko, J. Scott Armstrong, William M. Briggs, Kesten Green, Hermann Harde, David R. Legates, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and Willie Soon. On June 2, 2017, in a l,etter regarding US wUhdrawal t' om Paris c/;mate ag eement addressed to the MIT community, Professor Rafael Reif, president of MIT, criticized President Tmmp's decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords. In this refutation, we propose to clarify the scientific understanding of the Earth's climate and to dispel the expensively fostered popular delusion that man-made global warming will be dangerous and that, therefore, the Paris Agreement would be beneficial. Professor Reif wrote, "Yesterday, the White House took the position that the Paris climate agreement - a landmark effort to combat global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions -was a bad deal for America." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000004-00001 There is no science unambiguously establishing that CO2 is the chief cause of the warming observed since the end of the Little Ice Age. The opposite has been repeatedly demonstrated. Ice cores have revealed that changes in CO2 concentration follow, rather than precede, changes in temperature. During the last deglaciation, the latest high-resolution records show atmospheric CO2 lagging temperature by 50 to 500 years. Our enterprises and industries return to the air some of the CO2 that was formerly present there, and some warming may be expected. That warming will be small and beneficial. Professor Humlum and colleagues have demonstrated that changes in CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature after about 8-11 months. The time-lag between changes in temperature and consequent changes in CO2 concentration are caused by outgassing of CO2 from the oceans when they warm and uptake by the oceans as they cool. In addition, the growth rate of the atmospheric CO2 has been slowing recently, linked to an enhanced terrestrial biosphere uptake. Our contribution to atmospheric CO2 adds to the effect of these fluctuations, but it does not add much. One of us (Harde 2017) has reached similar conclusions. Professor Reif' s assertion that global temperatures can be regulated by an international agreement to atone for our sins of emission is, therefore, at odds with scientific knowledge regarding cause and effect. King Canute's warning to his English courtiers in 1032 A.D. that even the divinely anointed monarch could not command sea level should be heeded by bombastic intergovernmental agencies a millennium later. The professor's assertion is, moreover, logically invalid, since the Paris agreement permits China and India to industrialize without limit on their emissions. Besides, the Paris agreement is not binding. Under its terms, no nation is compelled to sin no more, and many - even including Germany and Denmark, the leaders in renewable energies now appear unlikely to meet the agreement's targets. The Paris agreement is, in practice, a political tool for suppressing growth and redistributing wealth. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the IPCC, said, in resigning in 2015, that the environment was his "religion," and Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, openly stated in 2015 that the goal was to overturn capitalism - in her words, "to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution." Professor Reif writes, "The scientific consensus is overwhelming." The late author Michael Crichton, in his Caltech Michelin Lecture 2003, said, "In science consensus is irrelevant. ... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." Doubt is the seedcorn of science. Consensus is a political notion which, when pleaded, indicates that the pleader is totalitarian. As Abu Ali ibn al-Haytham said in the eleventh century: The seeker after truth [his splendid definition of the scientist] does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable or widespread. Instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and to investigation, inspection, inquiry, checking, checking and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000004-00002 checking again. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow. The alleged "consensus" is nothing more than an agreement that the weather has warmed in the past 300 years. Yet the quantum and attribution of warming are hotly debated among climatologists. Even today, measuring global temperature is subject to errors, biases, missing data, and subjective adjustments. The estimation of global average temperature from satellite data is relatively new and employs a completely different temperature measurement method from the older methods. Nevertheless, the satellite data and balloon data have provided essentially identical estimates. Neither displays a worrying trend. Both are increasingly at odds not only with the surface temperature records, all of which have been adjusted ex post facto so as to show more warming than the original raw data showed, but also with the alarming projections of the serially unreliable computer models of climate on which the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change profitably but misguidedly relies. Scientists agree that climate changes. It has done so since the first wisps of the Earth's atmosphere formed, but they disagree on the causes of climate changes, including the mild warming since the Little Ice Age. Legates et al. (2015), for example, that only 0.3 percent of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles on climate and related topics, published during the 21 years of 1991 to 2011, had explicitly stated that recent warming was mostly man-made. Professor Reif wrote, "As human activities emit more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the global average surface temperature will continue to rise, driving rising sea levels and extreme weather." In the last 20 years, we have released more than a third of all the CO2 produced since the beginning of the industrial period. Yet global mean surface temperature has remained essentially constant for 20 years, a fact that has been acknowledged by the IPCC, whose models failed to predict it. NOAA's State of the Climate report for 2008 said that periods of 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between prediction and observation - i.e., that the models were wrong. Just before the recent naturally occurring el Nifio event raised global temperature, there had been 18 years and 9 months without any global warming at all. The climate models relied upon by the IPCC and the politicians they advise have predicted warming at about twice the rate observed during the past 27 years, during which the Earth has warmed at 0.4 °C, about half of the 0.75 °C 27-year warming rate implicit in IPCC's explicit 1990 prediction that there would be 1.0 °C warming from 1990-2025. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000004-00003 Table I Observed gl()bal wannini. 1990·2016. compared wilh IPCC' predictions mad~ in 1990 ·--------·····-·· -~-~~~~~_j -· ~b~,:~~:_t!~ns ("(') over 17 full ;-cars I Dataset NCEl HadC ---1 ------· Lineartrend.1990-2016 --------···,.-··-···"-'"-"" I Centennialequivalenttl'~md l --~ UAH ............ _..,...... _ ____ IPC'Cpredic~~-~~~~....J Min. '.\Ud Max. l 0. 75 0.49 0.47 0.32 0.53 1.81 l.73 1.18 1.94 2. 78 l.l3 4.17 1 Green and Armstrong (2014) conducted longer-term validation tests of the models and found that their forecasts were much less accurate than assuming there had been no global warming at all. The relative inaccuracy of the IPCC projections increased with longer (multi-decadal) horizons. Even forecasts of natural global cooling at a rate of I °C per century were much more accurate over long periods than the IPCC's projections of dangerous man-made global warming. Ten years ago, Al Gore asserted that global temperatures had reached a dangerous "tipping point," with extreme warming imminent and unavailable. Professor Scott Armstrong challenged Mr. Gore to a ten-year bet based on the Green-Armstrong-Soon (2009)) scientific no-change forecast of global mean temperatures. Mr. Gore declined the bet, but theclimatebet.com website keeps track of how the bet would have turned out. With the ten-year life of the bet due to end at the end of this year, the cumulative monthly error in the IPCC's business-as-usual 0.3 °C per decade prediction is 22 percent larger than the error from the benchmark prediction of no warming at all. Why does Professor Reif continue to champion the notion of dangerous manmade global warming when it is so greatly at odds with observation? Professor Reif wrote, As human activities emit more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the global average surface temperature will continue to rise, driving rising sea levels and extreme weather." The average sea level rise since 1870 has been 1.3-1.5 mm (about a twentieth of an inch) per year. Professor Nils-Axel Mamer, a renowned sea-level researcher who has published more than 500 peer-reviewed articles on this topic, has been unable to find observational evidence that supports the models' predictions of dramatically accelerating sea level rise. Professor Reif wrote, "As human activities emit more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the global average surface temperature will continue to rise, driving rising sea levels and extreme weather." Observations during the last few decades indicate that extreme events, including tornadoes and hurricanes, have been decreasing, rather than increasing. both in number and in intensity. Moreover, the total accumulated cyclonic energy has also been declining. As MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen has explained, the decline in storminess is a consequence of reduced SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000004-00004 temperature differentials between the tropics and exo-tropics that arise when global average temperatures are warmer. Professor Reif wrote, "As the Pentagon describes it, climate change is a "threat multiplier" because its direct effects intensify other challenges, including mass migrations and zero-sum conflicts over existential resources like water and food." Milder temperatures and increased CO2 levels green the planet, instead of browning it. Deserts are retreating, and vegetation cover has increased throughout recent decades. The production of maize, wheat, rice, and soybeans is at a record high. More CO2 in the air helps plants by CO2 fertilization. Our planet has seen more than 20 percent greening during the past three decades, half of which is due to the action of CO2. Forecasts of droughts are also not borne out by experience. For example, since the now-former Australian Chief Climate Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery warned that dams would no longer fill owing to lack of rain, Australia has been subjected to a series of dramatic floods and overflowing dams. Governments' naive belief in Professor Flannery' s warnings appear to have led to policy actions and omissions that exacerbated flooding and failed to take full advantage of the rainfall when it came. The most comprehensive recent study of the worldwide extent of droughts (Hao et al. 2014) found that for 30 years the percentage of the Earth's land mass under drought or severe drought has been declining. Though the U.N. Environment Program had published in 2005 a document predicting 50 million climate refugees by 2010, to date there have been no bona fide climate refugees. Nor has mass migration owing to global warming been observed. The one person recognized as a climate refugee had his demand rejected [CITE] by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. He has returned to his island home, where he remains safe from inundation. Professor Reif wrote, "The carbon dioxide our cars and power plants emit today will linger in the atmosphere for a thousand years." The average residence time of a CO2 molecule in the Earth's atmosphere is about four to seven years. Taking into account multiple exchanges leads to an estimate of a mean lifespan of 40 years (Harde 20 l 7). Rather than a problem, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the prime nutrient for plants. Indeed, plants grow more strongly when CO2 concentrations are much higher than they currently are, which is why commercial greenhouses add CO2 to the air. The current CO2concentration is higher than for 800,000 years, but it is far lower than at almost any time in the previous history of our planet. Nor is CO2 a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless gas that is not toxic to humans and other animals even at concentrations much higher than we are currently experiencing. It is also one of the most important fuels for phytoplankton, which use carbon dioxide for energy and that release oxygen. Up to 75 percent of the oxygen present in the air originates in the phytoplankton photosynthetic water-splitting process. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000004-00005 Moreover, during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, there were long periods during which the levels of CO2 were much higher than today, but the temperatures were far colder. We are not aware of any explanation that squares the man-made global warming theory with that fact. Professor Reif wrote, "In 2016 alone, solar industry employment grew by 25 percent, while wind jobs grew 32 percent." Growing jobs by subsidy is easy, provided that one cares nothing for the far greater number of jobs destroyed by the additional taxation, energy price hikes, or public borrowing necessary to pay for the subsidy. Several studies have=---'--'--'-" that the creation of one "green" job results in the loss of two jobs elsewhere in the economy. Despite all those subsidies, solar power accounts for 0.9 percent and wind generation for 5.6 percent of total U.S. electricity production. Electricity itself is a small fraction of total energy consumption, including transportation, industrial processes, and heating. The so-called alternative energy companies survive through heavy subsidies and supportive regulations. For example, SunEdison -'----=----='--"--'---'--=--=$1.5 billion in subsidies and loan guarantees, and yet it was compelled to for bankruptcy. Solyndra is another example. So-called "renewable" energy is cripplingly expensive to the customer but is often unprofitable even after massive subsidies from taxpayers. Europe is suffering from political rejection of fossil fuels: energy prices have soared, millions of poor people are unable to pay their energy bills, and energy-intensive businesses are relocating to where energy is cheaper. Theirs is not an example the U.S. should wish to follow. By withdrawing from the Paris agreement, President Trump did a wonderful thing for America and the world. He showed that advocacy masquerading as science should not be the basis for political decisions. He showed that to put America first is to put the planet first. And, by rejecting the non-problem of man-made global warming, he began the long and necessary process of waking up the likes of Professor Reif to the fact that the diversion of time, effort, and trillions of dollars away from real environmental problems and towards the bogus but (to MIT) profitable non-problem of supposedly catastrophic global warming is as bad for the planet as it is for true science. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000004-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 6/15/2017 4:34:48 PM Detroit News: Trump right to withdraw from Paris Climate Treaty h ://www.detroitnews.com/sto burnctt/ l 02869224/ lo inion/2017/06/15/trum - cement- Detroit News 6/15/17 Trump's Paris climate choice puts America first By: H. Sterling Burnett, the Heartland Institute In a much-anticipated decision, President Donald Trump kept his campaign promise by announcing recently that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement negotiated by 195 countries in December 2015. Under the agreement, the United States is required to cut its carbon-dioxide emissions 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and to provide billions of dollars in funding to the Green Climate Fund, which is administered by the United Nations. The emission cuts required by the Paris agreement would have forced the closure of many of the least-expensive power plants nationwide over the next decade, raising energy prices at a time of tepid economic growth and sky-high deficits. The low energy prices created by America's lowcost, abundant coal, oil and natural gas and the growth of those and related industries was responsible for almost all the economic growth that occurred during the Obama years. A study by NERA Economic Consulting cited by Trump in his announcement of the Paris pullout estimated if the United States were to meet its carbon-dioxide emissions reduction obligations under the Paris climate agreement, it would cost the economy nearly $3 trillion, with the United States losing 6.5 million industrial jobs by 2040, including 3.1 million in the manufacturing sector. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000005-00001 Trump's withdrawal is good news for the auto industry and the communities dependent on it, as they would have likely been hit the hardest by the Paris agreement's mandates. Withdrawing from the Paris accord allows Trump to revise the motor-fuel efficiency standards imposed by the Obama administration that ratcheted up fuel-economy standards to levels that soon would make most U.S. automobiles - and most cars from around the world- either unaffordable or would force Americans to drive only the smallest of subcompact cars. The powerful sedans, sports cars and SUV s produced in Detroit would be unable to meet the 54mile-per-gallon standard imposed by Obama and would eventually become extinct, leaving consumers with less freedom to choose the vehicle that best fits their needs. Obama's costly federal fuel-economy standards shoehorn everyone into underpowered, small, less-safe vehicles. When he pulled the United States out of the Paris agreement, Trump rightly noted the agreement was unfair to Americans, allowing major economic and/or geopolitical competitors such as China, India and Russia - all of which are among the world's largest greenhouse-gas emitters to continue growing their emissions while the United States makes cuts, making their economies comparatively more attractive to investment. The United States - which has through technological innovation reduced its greenhouse-gas emissions 12 percent since 2006, more than any other country-would under the Paris agreement have to continue cutting emissions. You heard that right: Under the Paris agreement, many of the countries that emit the largest amounts of greenhouse gasses get to keep growing their fossil-fuel use and spewing emissions while the United States, the country that has done the most to reduce emissions, is forced to restrict its energy use more and pay billions to the Green Climate Fund. And what gain would we get for all this pain? Virtually nothing, as the Paris climate agreement would do little to prevent future warming. A 2016 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study shows if all member nations meet their Paris obligations, it would only reduce global temperature rise by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) also found the treaty would have a negligible impact on climate change. A 2016 UNEP report showed even if all the parties to the agreement meet their promised emissions targets, the Paris agreement will result in less than half the greenhouse-gas cuts required to halt global temperature at an upper limit of 2 degrees C. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000005-00002 Leadership requires doing what's right even when the majority disagrees. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord displayed true leadership. Trump chose not to follow climate lemmings off the cliff to long-term economic decline, standing alone among the world's leaders as the one person brave enough to call the accord what it truly is: harmful and ineffective. The Paris climate agreement has never been about protecting the environment; it is an economic treaty aimed at transferring wealth from the poor and working class in developed countries to well-off international bureaucrats and corrupt leaders in developing countries. Trump is a breath of fresh air in the White House, a president whose primary mission is to promote Americans' interests and aspirations for a better life. Au revoir, Paris, and good riddance to a bad treaty. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000005-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 6/2/2017 4:01 :51 PM How will Trump remove the U.S. from the Paris Accord? Friends, I was very pleased to receive the invitation to attend President Trump's Rose Garden presentation announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord. I'm not a big fan of traveling to Washington DC, or showing up at political events, or of politicians generally or specifically, but it was a historic moment and a touching gesture to be invited to attend. Thank you to all who made it possible and made me feel welcome there. Christopher Monckton wrote to a group of us: One question not answered in Trump's speech was whether the U.S. had given, or would give, formal notice to the French Government as depositary state of the Paris treaty, or (preferably) to the U.N. as depositary state of the Framework Convention. Giving one year's notice under the Framework Convention gets us out of Paris too. Giving notice under Paris takes three years and still leaves us in the Convention. But I'm afraid it's far from clear that Trump has done or will do either. - Christopher The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Hobbit Court, Dyrham, Chippenham, SN14 8HE Tel. 0117 937 4155: cell i Ex. 6. Personal Privacy I [___ Ex._6_-Personal_Pri~acy_j · Perhaps someone on the bee line of this message can answer the implied question. President Trump and Administrator Pruitt were emphatic that the U.S. is leaving the accord and will stop implementation immediately. Since there are no enforcement mechanisms in the agreement, stopping implementation should not result in any sanctions, at least not sanctions arising from the accord itself. I wonder. .. what if President were now to submit a letter withdrawing from the UNFCCC? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000006-00001 Since he left unclear exactly how the U.S. would withdraw, he could simply say that he and his advisor decided withdrawal from UNFCCC was the fastest and best way to withdraw from the Paris Accord, a position many of us have advocated for. It would be consistent with his public remarks. For 99% of the public, the difference between withdrawing from the UNFCCC and Paris Accord is high weeds and just more blah, blah, blah. It would produce huge legal and tactical advantages down the road, helping make possible implementation of the America First Energy Plan. No doubt the left, including legacy media and the political class in the U.S. and abroad, would go crazy over such an announcement. .. for a week or two. They would spend a lot of time trying to explain the difference between UNFCCC and the Paris Accord, why it matters, etc. etc. In politics, if you are explaining, you are losing. And they've already "shot their wad," as we like to say here in the Heartland, by going nuclear over yesterday's announcement. So what else can they throw at this president? Is it possible? There is a fine line, I suppose, between brilliant and insane. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000006-00002 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000006-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 5/31/2017 10:36:10 PM Fred Palmer in Breitbart: Mr. President, keep the campaign pledge to withdraw from Paris. From: Billy Aouste Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:24 PM To: Heartland Institute Users Cc: Fred Palmer Subject: Fred Palmer in Breitbart Fred Palmer in Breitbart h ://www.brcitbart.com/bi - ovcmmcnt/2017 /05/3 l /frcdthe-am crica-first-cncrgy-plan/ Billy Aouste Media Specialist The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 5/31/17 Breitbart Paris Climate Agreement and the 'America First' Energy Plan By: Fred Palmer, the Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000007-00001 President Donald Trump delivered one of his most important campaign speeches at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck, North Dakota on May 26, 2016. During the headlines-making speech, Trump presented his ::.=IT:.:..'§:.;'!:.:.'£:."~..:...:.:-=-==~_:_:,=," a fundamentally different path for the U.S. fossil-fuel industry. Trump's plan called for a significant expansion of the oil, natural gas, and clean-coal industries. In the same speech, the future president pledged to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which had been signed by President Barack Obama in 2016. The Paris agreement calls for America to drastically reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions in the name of slowing or preventing human-caused climate change. During the eight years of the Obama administration, the federal government put into place a series of regulations designed to reduce and ultimately eliminate fossil fuels as an American energy source, and the Paris agreement was meant to continue Obama's anti-fossil-fuel legacy in the future. Policies that aim to reverse and disparage CO2 use have always been popular in the media, among ensconced government bureaucrats, and in academic circles, but they are anathema to the men and women who work in industry and agriculture. In my view, Trump is in the White House today largely because of that North Dakota energy speech. And if you doubt it, take a look at an election map showing the results of the 2016 presidential race. You'll see that 84 percent of the nation is colored red, with huge majorities of Trump voters residing in America's Heartland. The Heartland and its various industries have for many decades depended on fossil fuels in one form or another, and the people living there know it, which is bad news for anti-energy Democrats, who could remain out of power in the Heartland for a decade or more. Both the Trump speech and his plan were roundly criticized by media elites, academics, and those who make a living regulating people's lives. Their argument has been and remains today that Trump's America First Energy Plan is proof the president is ignorant about the supposed benefits of limiting fossil-fuel production and the potential of the alternative-energy market. There is also a lot of anger that's derived from Trump's rejection of policies that aim to fight climate change by reducing CO2. But on both scores, it's the elites that are the ignorant ones. Ramping up fossil-fuel production will spur economic growth, and thus help to balance the budget; fund infrastructure projects; and allow all Americans to enjoy a higher quality of life. A massive world market is eager to see the United States increase its production and energy exports. Billions of people around the world go without energy every day, and billions more people will soon be living in the same countries where energy poverty is currently endemic. America's fossil-fuel industries could help these people enjoy the prosperity and comfort of a middle-class lifestyle and all the benefits that come with it, including living longer. Trump understands the potential for fossil fuels better than any American political leader in modern history. He has made the media and the eco-left crazy because he has refused to SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000007-00002 embrace their vision of apocalyptic global warming. That, in their eyes, is the president's cardinal sin, but the Heartland sees it as a virtue. The president's call to withdraw from Paris was as sound as his support for policies that would help the country secure energy dominance. Of course, not everyone agrees. Some Republicans, including people within Trump's own team, believe America should "stay in Paris." This would be a massive mistake. Paris is an impediment to human development. Using fossil fuels to power the world is the only realistic way to bring billions of people out of poverty and provide affordable and abundant energy for the billions more that will soon join us on Earth. As I compose this today the news is full of stories that President Trump does indeed intend to keep the campaign pledge to withdraw from Paris. All praise, Mr. President, and please adhere to this path even as the Swamp, the Europeans and the major media all try to dishonestly shame you into staying in Paris. Stay on the course that recognizes the Paris agreement incorrectly demonizes carbon and CO2 emissions. Stay on the course that recognizes the Paris agreement is deeply flawed as it would put the world on a path to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Americans and people everywhere would be deeply harmed by staying in Paris. While the lawyers and experts figure out how to the undo the legal and diplomatic labyrinth the Obama team put in place to protect his flawed legacy, the American people, the world community and the natural environment will all benefit as Team Trump manages our energy policy and vast fossil fuel resources to fulfill their America First Energy Plan. Fred Palmer ,.=-=c..:..==:...;:_;::;_;~~=.:...::'-'-"'' is a senior fellow for energy policy at The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000007-00003 From: Joseph Bast Wed 5/31/20171:35:39 PM Fingers crossed re announcement on Paris today ... and good piece by Jon Utley at American Conservative Sent: Subject: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/submit-the-paris-treaty-to-the-senate/ Submit the Paris Treaty to the Senate It's the best way out of the climate morass. By Jon Basil Utley • May 30, 2017 The so-called Paris "Treaty" has all sorts of grounds for complicated lawsuits to restrict America's new found energy independence and growing massive natural-gas production. We need to get out from under it. Yet a weakened President Trump is hesitating while the globalwarming lobby tries desperately to confound the issues. There have recently been stories raising concerns about how South Pole ice might one da melt and raise sea levels. But this because ice has been increasing at the South Pole. (See my earlier article for details on South Pole ice and new cold weather records in Asia.) It is seldom mentioned that the "Treaty" received nearly unanimous support among developing nations because they were promised billions per year to pay for cutbacks on their energy production. As Rloomherg verified, "many poor nations signed up to the treaty largely because of a promise of $100 billion a year of 'climate aid' from rich nations, starting from 2020." Of course, most of this money is supposed to come from Washington and Obama committed a billion for it before leaving office. Similarly, European support can be understood in terms of the feared political backlash from voters (Germans are paying over 30 euro-cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, nearly three times what Americans pay) if questions are raised about the hundreds of billions their governments have spent subsidizing solar and wind power. There is also a vital constitutional issue of senatorial "advice and consent." There is no question that the Paris Agreement was a treaty. Obama knew he would not get the votes in the Senate to pass it. The precedent of so committing America to such an agreement without a Senate vote should not be allowed to stand. A report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute lays out the reasons: The Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000008-00001 predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements, and other common-sense criteria. CEI's analysis further explains: A majority of states have sued to overturn the Obama Environmental Protection Agency's endrun around Congress, the Clean Power Plan, which is also the centerpiece of the U.S. NDC (nationally determined contributions) under the Paris Agreement. Yet, the CPP is only a start. All of Obama' s adopted and proposed climate policies would only achieve about 51 percent of just the first NDC, and the Paris Agreement requires parties to promise more "ambitious" NDCs every five years. The Republican Senate will not vote to approve the treaty. That would end any case for its legal validity. Fear that a vote might be filibustered so that some future leftist administration could eventually resubmit it for ratification is bogus. In fact, it would be a constant thorn in the side of the Left for future elections. Remember another real motive for them is for Washington to have growing bureaucratic control over the states and citizenry. All sorts of new government powers could be claimed as a way of controlling climate change. Fears of this would give conservatives a constant election issue by keeping the issue alive. The current risks of doing nothing are explained in another article: Environmental pressure groups and several state attorneys general have begun to prepare lawsuits in federal court to block withdrawal of the "Clean Power" Plan and other greenhouse gas rules. One argument that they have already put forward is that these rules cannot be withdrawn because they are part of our international commitment under the Paris Climate Treaty. Failing to withdraw from Paris thus exposes key parts of your deregulatory energy agenda to unnecessary legal risk. The A Gs revealed in a recruiting letter that they also plan other lawsuits "ensuring that the promises made in Paris become reality. Bjorn Lomborg explains the flaws of the treaty in r !SA fod y: In truth, Trump's action just exposes what we have known for a while: The Paris Agreement is not the way to solve global warming. Even if every nation fulfilled everything promised including Obama's undertakings - it would get us nowhere near achieving the treaty's muchhyped, unrealistic promise to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Further obfuscating the issues is the constant barrage about the ease of moving to so called "clean energy." Actually "wind and solar arc suppl ing less than I% of global energy_ demand .... wind provided 0.46% of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35%." Higher reported numbers for renewables include wood burning, dung and such. With all the complications, the best way to ice the treaty is to put it before the Senate for ratification. Failure there will once and for all end any legal grounds for implementing it. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000008-00002 Jon Basil Utley is publisher a/The American Conservative. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000008-00003 Joseph Bast Tue 5/30/2017 8:57:02 PM Heartland Institute Experts React to Reports President Trump Will Pull U.S. Out of Paris Climate Treaty From: Sent: Subject: From: Billy Aouste Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:50 PM To: Heartland Institute Users Subject: FW: Heartland Institute Experts React to Reports President Trump Will Pull U.S. Out of Paris Climate Treaty Good Afternoon Everyone, The following press release is scheduled to go out to 11,643 Environment and Energy contacts. Sincerely, Billy THE E RTL ND INSTITUTE HEARTLAND.ORG Heartland Institute Experts React to Reports President Trump Will Pull U.S. Out of Paris Climate Treaty President Donald Trump tweeted last week from the G7 summit that he will make a decision this week on whether to leave or stay in the Paris Climate Treaty. Reports in the past few days say he has told "confidants" he will withdraw from the agreement, negotiated by President Barack Obama at the Conference of the Parties (COP-21) in Paris in December 2015. The Heartland Institute has long urged President Trump to withdraw. A special webpage outlining Heartland's work on the subject - including footage from its "counter conference" at COP-21 - can be found here. The following statements from environment and energy policy experts at The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000009-00001 - a free-market think tank- may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at media@hcartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 847/445-7554. "President Tmmp would make exactly the right call by deciding to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Treaty. Staying in would make it impossible to implement his America First Energy Plan. Staying in would result in U.S. taxpayers and consumers paying hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes and higher energy costs solely for the benefit of crony capitalists in the 'renewable' energy industry and Third World dictators. Staying in would not benefit the global environment one whit, but instead, by impoverishing millions of people, would have exactly the opposite effect. "In the next few days, Donald Tmmp can show he has what it takes to become one of America's greatest presidents. Let's hope he swings hard and aims for the upper deck, and that the men and women around him, both in the White House and in Congress, have the courage and intelligence to support his decision." Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute jbast@heartland.org 312/377-4000 "Donald Tmmp was elected president to return the United States to a path where our fossil fuel resources are unleashed to power our future and drive our prosperity. The vehicle is the fossilfuels-based America First Energy Plan, now U.S. policy under the Trnmp administration. President Trnmp recognizes that the anti-fossil-fuel Paris Accord set by President Obama is a disastrous plan for working men and women and the country itself - and he pledged to discard it in the presidential campaign. "Paris was the product of President Obama mimicking the Al Gore approach to energy and carbon. Obama abused the formidable power of the presidency to drive an agenda to eliminate fossil fuel use in the name of a phantom vision based on everything but sound science and common sense. The Obama approach was to make energy in the U.S. scarce and expensive, resulting in real suffering for working men and women. "President Trnmp has understood this from the start, and it appears he will make the absolutely correct and necessary decision to withdraw from Paris. That move will generate great praise for rejecting Paris and what it stands for. Under President Trnmp's leadership, America and American energy will be great again, and the American people will be the beneficiaries." Fred Palmer Senior Fellow, Energy Policy The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000009-00002 fpalmer@heartland.org 312/377-4000 "President Trump appears poised to take an important, concrete step to putting America First by withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord and enacting energy policy that reflects his desire to foster economic growth. "Dismantling the Clean Power Plan, a key component of the United States' commitment under the Paris Accord, is an important step to ensuring low energy prices in the United States and making American manufacturing competitive in the global marketplace." Isaac Orr Research Fellow, Energy and Environment Policy The Heartland Institute iorr@heartland.org 312/377-4000 "Adieu Paris! If in fact President Trump pulls the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, it will be another big win for taxpayers, consumers, and energy producers in flyover country. producers in flyover country. Angela Merkel and what is left of the E.U. are not happy (itself a victory), but fake science and globalism would take a big hit with this move. "The president's strong statements at the G7 conference, followed by this increasingly likely decision, show that the U.S. is not going to be the sugar daddy for this climate scam. The Paris Climate Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change will collapse without the U.S. willing to pick up the tab. "Building on the fresh leadership at EPA and the departments of Interior and Energy, getting out of the Paris Agreement will show that we are moving in the right direction. In a word, gagnant." Bette Grande Research Fellow, Energy Policy The Heartland Institute govemmentrelations@hcartland.org 312/377-4000 Ms. Grande represented the 41st District in the North Dakota Legislature from 1996 to 2014. "Proponents of the Paris treaty acknowledge that it won't have a noticeable effect on global temperatures even if the signees adhere to its conditions, which is in itself an exceedingly unlikely scenario. They have thus resorted to appeals to self-interest, claiming nations will experience huge windfalls from investments in green energy. The evidence shows, however, that government-mandated or -subsidized investments in green tech make energy vastly more expensive and cost many more jobs than they allegedly create. "The great French economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out the foolishness of breaking windows in SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000009-00003 order to employ people to fix them: It ignores the diversion of resources from other, better uses. The Paris agreement is window-breaking on a global scale." S.T. Karnick Director of Publications The Heartland Institute skamick@heartland.org 312/377-4000 "I hope the U.S. withdraws from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Then countries like Canada, which follow America on this file, will be more likely to get out as well." Tom Harris Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition Ottawa, Canada Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment The Heartland Institute tom .harri s@climatesci enceintemational. net 312/377-4000 The Heartland fnstitute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000009-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 5/30/2017 1:53:53 PM Get out of Paris: Ted Cruz: at CNN, Cliff Forrest in WSJ Two good pieces ... Joe inions/withdraw- aris-accord-o m10ncruz/index.html Ted Cruz: Trump should withdraw from Paris climate pact By Ted Cruz Updated 9:22 AM EDT, Tue May 30, 2017 Editor's Note: (Ted Cruz represents Texas in the United States Senate. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. ) (CNN) Following a successful international tour and the G-7 Summit in Italy, President Trump has an opportunity to relieve our nation of the unfair and economically devastating requirements of the Paris Agreement, the United Nations climate treaty he pledged to rip up during the campaign. And as soon as possible, President Trump should act on -- and keep -- his campaign promise. The agreement, signed by the Obama administration last year, would commit the United States to drastically reducing its carbon emissions while allowing some countries to increase theirs. This, all while doing nothing to meaningfully decrease global temperatures. According to a recent National Economic Research Associates Economic Consulting study, the Paris Agreement could obliterate $3 trillion of GDP, 6.5 million industrial sector jobs and $7,000 in per capita household income from the American economy by 2040. Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs. The cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining industries could see their production cut by 21 % 19%, and 11% respectively. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000010-00001 Not only would these unfair standards reduce American job growth and wages and increase monthly utility costs for hardworking families, they would fundamentally disadvantage the United States in the global economy. The result: our economic output would lag while other countries continued to expand their GDPs. The agreement's proponents market it as a panacea for addressing the impacts of climate change, but at its core, it is about increasing government control -- over the economy, the energy sector and nearly every aspect of our daily lives. It represents the exact misguided, top-down, government-knows-best approach that American voters resoundingly rejected in 2016. We cannot pursue a path that puts American workers first if we cripple a fossil fuel energy sector that generates 82% of the energy consumed in the United States. The coal industry alone supplies almost one-third of America's electric power -- with an increasing amount of clean coal-burning technology becoming available. America is poised to become a net energy exporter over the next decade. We should not abandon that progress at the cost of weakening our energy renaissance and crippling economic growth. And let's not forget the massive utility cost increases the agreement would entail. The Clean Power Plan, a major component of fulfilling the agreement, would spike energy costs for working and middle-class Texans by 16% by 2030, according to the Economic Reliability Council of Texas, the entity that operates the electric grid for much of our state. We simply cannot afford an agreement that puts thousands of Americans out of work, increases their energy costs and devastates our core industries. In return for crippling our economy, the Paris Agreement would do next to nothing to impact global temperatures. Under the EP A's own models, if all carbon emissions in America were basically eliminated, global temperatures would only decrease by less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius. While the agreement would have a negligible impact on temperatures, America would be putting itself at a competitive disadvantage. That's because while the Obama administration irresponsibly committed America to immediate, real cuts in emissions, our global economic competitors would have no such handicap. In fact, Russia is permitted to increase its emissions approximately 50% and China and India have no meaningful cap on emissions_ until 2030. This disparity among the countries' pledges inflicts real losses on our economy now while our rivals continue to grow, industrialize and diversify at their own pace with no implementation costs. In the meantime, the agreement would force American taxpayers to subsidize alternative energy at the expense of clean coal, nuclear power and natural gas -energy resources that actually work for our economy and our environment. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000010-00002 The Paris Agreement would also handicap America in the global race for new sources of energy. Russia has committed financial and military assets to the Arctic to stake its claim to the region's vast deepwater mineral, oil and gas deposits. China is also exploring and trading for Arctic oil and gas. Meanwhile, American liquefied natural gas struggles with logistical costs that weaken its competitiveness. By allowing our rivals to increase their cooperation and strategic leverage around the world -pressuring our allies and partners, harming domestic job creators and materially reducing our prestige and influence in the process --- the agreement would damage America's national security as much as our economic security. The emission cuts that the US would have to make today, and the resultant costs for our own energy firms, would weaken our ability to battle our rivals on an equal footing in the drive for untapped energy sources. Efforts to unwind some of the deal's more onerous regulations are welcomed, but that is not enough. Unless the US completely withdraws, the Paris Agreement will continue to cause sustained harm to our security and economy, and it keeps the door open for future administrations to use it as means to impose more costly and ineffective energy regulations. We should not let a deal subject to the whims of future administrations or Congresses hang like a wet blanket over our economy -- driving up energy prices, devastating our industrial base and bolstering our rivals. I hope President Trump will take the opportunity before him to fulfill the commitment he made and withdraw America from the Paris Agreement. h s://www. ws · .com/articles/the-business-case-for- aris-is-bunk-149609593 7 The 'Business Case' for Paris Is Bunk The climate accord is a boon-yet would be unfair? pulling out By Cliff Forrest May 29, 2017 6:12 p.m. ET SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000010-00003 As President Trump weighs whether to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, some have tried to present a "business case" for why the U.S. should stay in. An economic windfall would come with the early and aggressive investment in alternative energy that the accord mandates, or so the argument goes. The Paris Agreement's backers have told a very incomplete story and reached the wrong conclusion. The economic merits of the Paris Agreement take on a different air when more fully considered. Climate-change advocates' bizarre premise is that economic gains will come from restricting access to the most abundant, reliable and affordable fuel sources. Never mind that this defies the experience of many European nations that have invested heavily in renewable energy. After "Germany's aggressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar," for example, the magazine=-=-=---=--== declared in 2013 that electricity had become "a luxury good." Apparently this time will be different. There are a few interesting hypocrisies to consider as well. The commercial interests that strongly support the Paris Agreement typically have created programs to exploit, game or merely pass through the costs of the climate-change agenda. Many also maintain a green pose for marketing purposes. The classic example of this rent-seeking behavior was Enron, which in 1996 purchased Zond Energy Systems (now GE Wind) to complement its gas pipeline. Enron then set about lobbying its way to green-energy riches. It seems that Paris backers hope for a sudden public amnesia about the many businesses that use government to push out smaller competitors. Green companies also argue that, beyond economic benefits, their ability to slow climate change helps contribute to the public good. To my knowledge, none declare a measurable impact on climate from their businesses or their desired policies. Mr. Trump should keep in mind that the people calling for him to stick with the Paris Agreement largely did not support him during the campaign. Few would like to see him succeed now. As for his strongest supporters, they're the ones who will take the hit if he breaks his promise to withdraw. Some countries have threatened to punish the U.S. if it pulls out of the accord. Rodolfo Lacy Tamayo, Mexico's undersecretary for environmental policy and planning, said in an interview with the _______ "A carbon tariff against the United States is an option for us." Countries imposing costs on their own industries through the Paris Agreement complain that they are at a disadvantage if the U.S. doesn't do the same. Apparently they didn't receive the talking points describing green energy as an economic boon for everyone involved. So which is it? Does the Paris Agreement spur a U.S. economy otherwise unprepared to succeed in the 21st century? Or is the U.S. maintaining economic advantage by not subjecting itself to the accord's arduous requirements? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000010-00004 Mr. Trump's obligation is to do what is in America's best interest. Rejecting a confused and costly international agreement, with questionable benefits to climate, should be a slam dunk. Don't take my word for it: Just study the other side's arguments. Mr. Forrest is CEO of Rosebud Mining. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000010-00005 From: Joseph Bast Sun 5/28/2017 5:36:17 PM A critique of "What happens if the U.S. withdraws from the Paris climate change agreement?" Associated Press Sent: Subject: Some of my comments below might be useful in defending the President's decision, should he make it, to withdraw from the Paris accord. Joe h ://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-ha ens-if-thc-u-s-withdraws-from-thcchange-agreement/?ftag=CNM-00- l 0aab7e&link[d=38083675 atis-climatc- What happens if the U.S. withdraws from the Paris climate change agreement? WASHING TON -- Earth is likely to reach more dangerous levels of warming even sooner if the U.S. retreats from its pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution, scientists said. That's because America contributes so much to rising temperatures. [Both sentences are meaningless. "More dangerous levels of warming" than in the past? The benefits of past warming exceeded the benefits, so those levels were not dangerous. "More dangerous" is therefore nonsensical. More dangerous than what is now forecast to occur in a century or two? Those forecasts are not scientific, are technically "scenarios" and not predictions, and are too speculative to compare and contrast.] President Donald Trump, who once proclaimed global warming a Chinese hoax, [Trump suggested the hype surrounding the global warming campaign could be fueled by the Chinese as part of their ongoing propaganda campaign against the U.S. and to create markets for its wind and solar industries. That's probably true, since the global warming movement resembles other Chinese disinfonnation programs.] said in a tweet Saturday that he would make his "final decision" next week on whether the United States stays in or leaves the 2015 Paris climate change accord in which nearly every nation agreed to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. Global leaders, at a summit in Sicily, have urged him to stay. Earlier in the week, Pope Francis SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000011-00001 made that case with a gift of his papal encyclical on the environment when Trump visited the Vatican. [Just a reminder, Pope Francis is not a climate scientist, but is a very liberal environmentalist who thinks capitalism is responsible for turning the planet into a "an immense pile of filth." He is being advised on the climate issue by far-left activists, not real climate scientists. His opinions on scientific and economic controversies are not binding on Catholics, and in fact are at odds with those of past Popes.] In an attempt to understand what could happen to the planet if the U.S. pulls out of Paris, The Associated Press ["The Associated Press" most likely refers to Seth Borenstein, a radical environmentalist pretending to be a reporter. He has been called out for his bias and misrepresentation of the truth many times.] consulted with more than two dozen climate scientists and analyzed a special computer model scenario designed to calculate potential effects. [Anyone paying attention to the climate change debate knows "special computer model scenario" is code for a newly tuned model based on assumptions and unreliable data designed to arrive at politically acceptable forecasts. Of course this new model provides support for the US staying in the Paris agreement. .. that is what it was tuned to find. The NIPCC produced a devastating critique of computer models.] Play VIDEO Defense Secretary James Mattis on climate change, Paris accord Scientists said it would worsen an already bad problem and make it far more difficult to prevent crossing a dangerous global temperature threshold. [No, some scientists (but mostly nonscientists) dependent on government grants or working for environmental advocacy groups claim this. Most scientists either disagree or don't have an opinion on the subject. See Chapter 1 of Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. See also the "skeptical" scientists who appear here.] Calculations suggest it could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year. When it adds up year after year, scientists said that is enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather. [Even the IPCC disagrees with most or all of this, saying in its latest report that significant sea level rise and more extreme weather are unlikely or cannot be predicted with certainty. See here. This claim is also dependent on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, which probably is much less than alarmists believe. See here.] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000011-00002 "If we lag, the noose tightens," said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, co-editor of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change. [Michael Oppenheimer is "an activist first, a scientist a distant second." He was an environmental activist working for Environmental Defense Fund who went back to college to get a Ph.D. so he could pretend to be a climate scientist. He should never be quoted in a real news story as a climate scientist.] One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century. [Right. .. see above about models.] Scientists are split on how reasonable and likely that scenario is. [Wow, a concession that there isn't "overwhelming consensus" on one model or one forecast? This sentence is the tip of an iceberg of truth.] Many said because of cheap natural gas that displaces coal and growing adoption of renewable energy sources, it is unlikely that the U.S. would stop reducing its carbon pollution even if it abandoned the accord, so the effect would likely be smaller. [So the U.S. is reducing its "carbon pollution" and this trend is likely to continue regardless of Paris. Other countries are increasing their emissions and would continue regardless of Paris, since the goals set in Paris are supposedly nonbinding. What, then, is the accord supposed to achieve? About the only thing "for sure" about the Paris accord is that it would commit the U.S. to sending hundreds of billions of dollars on renewable energy (with virtually no impact on emissions or climate) and to third world countries. What does America get out of this agreement? Nothing at all.] Play VIDEO Lessons from Holland on fighting rising sea levels Others say it could be worse because other countries might follow a U.S. exit, leading to more emissions from both the U.S. and the rest. Another computer simulation team put the effect of the U.S. pulling out somewhere between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit). While scientists may disagree on the computer simulations they overwhelmingly agreed that the warming the planet is undergoing now would be faster and more intense. The world without U.S. efforts would have a far more difficult time avoiding a dangerous threshold: keeping the planet from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000011-00003 [Why is 2 degrees C a "dangerous threshold"? We're half-way there and see no dangerous impacts so far. And the latest estimates of climate sensitivity and atmosphere residence time suggest human emissions are unlikely to ever cause 2 degrees or more of warming, with or without treaties and efforts to reduce emissions. (See Figure 5 starting on page 66 of Why Scientists Disagree.) So this is all just fake news.] The world has already warmed by just over half that amount -- with about one-fifth of the past heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions coming from the United States, usually from the burning of coal, oil and gas. So the efforts are really about preventing another 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) from now. 39 PHOTOS Stunning photos of climate change "Developed nations - particularly the U.S. and Europe - are responsible for the lion's share of past emissions, with China now playing a major role," said Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis. "This means Americans have caused a large fraction of the warming." Even with the U.S. doing what it promised under the Paris agreement, the world is likely to pass that 2 degree mark, many scientists said. But the fractions of additional degrees that the U.S. would contribute could mean passing the threshold faster, which could in tum mean "ecosystems being out of whack with the climate, trouble farming current crops and increasing shortages of food and water," said the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Kevin Trenberth. [Kevin Trenberth is another bad apple who ought not be presented as an objective or independent climate scientist.] Climate Interactive, a team of scientists and computer modelers who track global emissions and pledges, simulated global emissions if every country but the U.S. reaches their individualized goals to curb carbon pollution. Then they calculated what that would mean in global temperature, sea level rise and ocean acidification using scientifically-accepted computer models. By 2030, it would mean an extra 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the air a year, according to the Climate Interactive models, and by the end of the century 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming. "The U.S. matters a great deal," said Climate Interactive co-director Andrew Jones. "That amount could make the difference between meeting the Paris limit of two degrees and missing it." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000011-00004 Climate Action Tracker, a competing computer simulation team, put the effect of the U.S. pulling out somewhere between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.36 Fahrenheit) by 2100. It uses a scenario where U.S. emissions flatten through the century, while Climate Interactive has them rising. One of the few scientists who plays down the harm of the U.S. possibly leaving the agreement is John Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the scientist credited with coming up with the 2 degree goal. "Ten years ago (a U.S. exit) would have shocked the planet," Schellnhuber said. "Today if the U.S. really chooses to leave the Paris agreement, the world will move on with building a clean and secure future." Not so, said Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe: "There will be ripple effects from the United States' choices across the world." [Katharine Hayhoe is another bad apple who ought not be presented as an independent or credible climate scientist. However, she might be correct this time. If the U.S. drops out of Paris, other nations are likely to follow our lead and the world-wide war on fossil fuels might actually come to an end.] Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000011-00005 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000011-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 5/18/2017 1:34:22 PM H. Sterling Burnett in the Detroit News: Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement FYI. h ://www.detroitncws.com/sto lo inion/20 l 7/05/18/ aris-climatc/101815198/ Billy Aouste Media Specialist The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Detroit News 5/18/17 Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement By: H. Sterling Burnett, the Heartland Institute As a candidate for president, Donald Trump said he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement and called it a bad deal for America. In an April speech in Harrisburg, Penn., Trump reiterated this claim, saying the Paris climate agreement in its current form hurts America. Despite his continued opposition, however, it remains unclear whether a withdrawal is in the nation's future. It's time for this administration to keep its promise, by getting the U.S. out of this flawed, costly agreement. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000012-00001 Some in Trump's team have reportedly said if the United States' commitments are restructured there might be a path to stay in the Paris climate agreement. While there may be a better deal to be had - after all, the Obama administration could hardly have negotiated a worse deal for Americans - there is no deal that would be good for the country. Even Trump can't put lipstick on this very ugly pig. While our economic competitors, such as China and India, do not have to limit their fossil-fuel use under the agreement, the U.S. is required to make steep cuts, which are estimated to cost our economy trillions of dollars over the life of the agreement without providing any appreciable environmental benefits. Additionally, a deal isn't possible without the U.S. paying into the political slush fund called the Green Climate Fund, which Trump promised to halt payments to. What is gained by staying in? Nothing. The question is not whether Trump should keep his word and withdraw from the Paris agreement; it's simply a matter of choosing the best way to do so. There are three options. The first way to cancel America's participation in the Paris climate agreement - and the one that most directly satisfies Trump's campaign commitment- is simply to withdraw the United States' signature entirely. Under the Paris agreement, any country can withdraw from the agreement by giving written notice of a decision to do so to the U.N. secretary general. Unfortunately, under the terms of the agreement, Trump can't give such notice until the agreement has been in place for three years, which means the earliest withdrawal date is Oct. 5, 2019. Making matters worse, the withdrawal does not become effective until one year after the written notice is delivered. This means even if Trump determines to withdraw from the Paris agreement today, the country will remain stuck with its terms for a minimum of almost four years, and while America remains a party to the agreement, it is obligated to keep its commitments. Because the four-year withdrawal period will not run out until after Trump's first term is over, should he decide not to run for president again or should he nm for re-election and lose, the next president could simply recommit the United States to the agreement with a simple signature. The second way to scotch America's commitments under the Paris climate agreement would be SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000012-00002 for Trnmp to submit it to the Senate for formal approval as a treaty. This is what Obama should have done in the first place. To become a binding treaty, the Senate would have to approve the Paris climate agreement by a two-thirds vote. If the agreement loses the treaty vote - and it likely would in a full vote of the Senate - the deal is canceled. However, nothing requires the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote on the Paris climate agreement if Trnmp submits it to them. Using the Senate filibuster rnles, Senate Democrats could block the treaty from ever coming up for a vote. Such a move is likely, since the vast majority of Democrats support the Paris agreement. Under this scenario, the treaty would remain pending, leaving a future Senate to decide its fate. The easiest way for Trnmp to end U.S. participation in Paris and all international climate agreements would be for him to remove the country's signature from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. Article 25 of the UNFCCC allows any state party to the convention to withdraw, without further obligation, upon giving one year's notice. Withdrawing from UNFCCC would cancel the United States' obligations to all other United Nations-brokered climate agreements made subsequent to UNFCCC, because they are all built on it. This would be the best and easiest way to get out of the Paris climate agreement, and it would help to prevent future burdensome climate agreements. Mr. President, whichever path you choose, please keep your promise and withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, placing it firmly in the dustbin of history -where it belongs. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is a research fellow on energy and the environment at the Heartland Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000012-00003 From: Joseph Bast Mon 5/8/2017 9:59:09 PM National Black Chamber of Commerce letter to President Trump on Paris NBCC open letter to President on Paris.pdf Sent: Subject: This is important, but will be carefully hidden by the liberal media. Black business leaders who don't buy into the Democratic Party's victimhood tactics are paying attention to what President Trump is doing on energy policy. Pulling out from the Paris Climate Treaty and citing among the reasons the negative effects of higher energy costs on small and minority-owned businesses would be another beat on the drum calling for black leaders to abandon the failing Democratic Party. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000013-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 National Black Chamber of Commerce ® 4400 Jenifer St 1'1'"\\. Suite 331 \\·ashington, DC 20015 202-466-6888 Fax 202-466-4918 ·ww\t'.nationalbcc.oi:g info@natiomlbcc.org Open Letter to President Trump May 5, 2016 The President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: You were swept into office on a tide of campaign promises that were aimed at ushering America into an era ofrenewed prosperity, leadership, and strength. Since taking office, you have kept the faith of American voters and honored those promises through your actions. On behalf of the millions of African Americans who have a stake in the businesses represented by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, I respectfully call on you today to keep yet another critical promise to the American people: Withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Our nation's families and businesses depend on affordable, reliable energy every single day. It is the lifeblood of our economy, it is fundamental to our modem society, and it is essential to our future strength, security, and growth. Our continued participation in the Paris Agreement, however, threatens to undermine that very foundation of our strength. Remaining in the Paris Agreement will keep us party to a deal that was skewed against America and her allies from the start. Regardless of whether the United States' Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) remains at the current 26 to 28 percent emissions reduction target, the Agreement itself unfairly demands stringent measures from the U.S. and other developed nations - measures that experts estimate will cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs - while allowing nations like China and India to continue increasing their emissions and moving their economies forward. The U.S. will always have a seat at the table with the United Nations and, given our membership in the UNFCCC, with entities such as the Green Climate Fund. What we cannot afford, however, is to willingly sacrifice our place as global economic leader to appease international SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000014-00001 bureaucrats who would seek to dictate what kinds of energy we use in America and how, when, and why we use them. We applaud you for taking important steps during the first I 00 days of your presidency to begin dismantling many of the economically harmful energy regulations - couched as environmental policies, although they would provide minimal environmental benefits - put forward by the previous administration. Our entry into the Paris Agreement, however, was predicated on exactly those policies. Keeping the United States a party to the Agreement would thus only serve to legitimize those misguided mandates and regulations. Furthermore, doing so would provide credibility to a deal that seeks to better the economic fortunes of our international competitors at the expense of America's strength and standing in the global marketplace. That's something we can't afford. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your decision on this very important issue in the coming weeks. Respectfully, Harry C. Alford President/CEO SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000014-00002 From: Joseph Bast Wed 5/10/2017 1:29:34 PM Tom Harris on withdrawing from the Paris accord on the Lars Larson Show, broadcast on 102 radio stations Sent: Subject: Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000015-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 5/9/2017 2:45:53 PM Tom Harris: "Killing The Paris Agreement Is Not Enough" Friends, Outstanding piece by Tom Harris at Daily Caller. This really is a case where cutting the tail off the dog all at once, rather than an inch at a time, is the right move. Withdrawal from the UNFCCC, something the old diplomatic guard and crony capitalists say is impossible, is the right thing to do now. It would be the shot heard around the world and bring the whole AGW house of cards tumbling down. Tom can be reached at tom.harris@climatescicnceintcmational.net or Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) P.O. Box 23013 Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2 Canada www.climatescienceintemational.org 613- 728-9200 Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000016-00001 hi Killing The Paris Agreement Is Not Enough Tom HatTis Executive Director Climate Science Coalition 5:50 PM 05/08/2017 If President Donald Trump merely pulls the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, it will be like cutting the head off a dandelion. It will look good for a while until equally bad agreements quickly grow back when a Democrat occupies the White House again. Trump needs to dig up the roots of Paris-the 1992 U.N. climate treaty-if he is to keep his campaign promise to "stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs." Trump can, and should, get the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, of course. Besides the scientifically unfounded objective of "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels," as if we had a global thermostat, the agreement lets so-called developing countries almost entirely off the hook despite the fact that non-OECD countries are now the greatest source of energy related emissions. Consider the agreement's emission targets for the U.S. versus China, currently the world's largest emitter, for example: • The Obama administration agreed to an economy-wide target of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas (82% of which is carbon dioxide (CO2)) emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025. • China agreed "to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030" and to other measures such as those designed to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption. Taking into consideration expected economic growth in China and other factors, their target translates into about a 70% increase above its 2005 level in 2025. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000016-00002 Yet writing in the Chicago Tribune, Paul Bodnar, a Special Assistant to former-President Obama and a key architect of the 2014 U.S.-China deal (which has the same emission targets as Paris), echoes the position of many opinion leaders when he asserted, "The Paris Agreement ... puts China, India, and other emerging markets on equal footing with the United States." Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. It will not even be necessary for developing nations to meet their weak Paris emission targets anyway. They have an out-clause, one not applicable to developed countries. The Paris Agreement starts: "The Parties to this Agreement, being Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [FCCC], hereinafter referred to as 'the Convention', ... " "The Convention," referenced 51 times in the Paris Agreement, is the foundation of the agreement. It is the 1992 U.N. climate treaty signed by President George H. W. Bush at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and later was ratified by the U.S. Senate. It sets the ground rules for many U.N. climate agreements, including Paris. Ignored by environmental groups and their allies in the media is Article 4 in the FCCC, which states: "Economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties." Actions that significantly reduce CO2 emissions would entail dramatically cutting back on the use of coal, the source of most of the developing world's electricity. As coal is usually the least expensive source of power, reducing CO2 output by restricting coal use would undoubtedly interfere with development priorities. So developing countries almost certainly won't do it, citing FCCC Article 4 as their excuse. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines (his country gets almost a third of its power from coal) gave us a preview of what we should expect when he said last July: "You are trying to stymie [our growth] with an agreement ... That's stupid. I will not honor that." Climate treaty supporters have speculated that the inclusion of a new phrase added to the agreements in 2014-that countries' responsibilities will be decided "in light of different national circumstances"-will impose tougher requirements on poor nations as they develop. This is naive. Article 4 has been the foundation of all UN climate negotiations, and developing countries will not allow this to change. Chinese negotiator Su Wei made this clear when he explained his SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000016-00003 government's position that the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to "reinforce and enhance" the FCCC, not rewrite it. Before leaving office, Obama did his best to 'Trump-proof his climate change agenda; even giving $1/2 billion to the U.N. climate fund in his last three days. Trump needs to Democratproofhis agenda and clearly, the best way to do that is to withdraw from the FCCC completely, which he can do without Senate approval. Unlike Paris, which stipulates that the earliest a country can quit the agreement is November 2020, withdrawal from the FCCC is allowed with one year's notice. And both Article 25 of the FCCC and Article 28 of the Paris Agreement concur-once a signatory exits the Convention, they are out of all agreements that are based on the FCCC, including Paris. If all the president does is withdraw from the Paris Agreement, then not only will the U.S. still be stuck with huge bills from the U.N.'s Green Climate Fund and other misguided FCCC-based initiatives, but Trump will be leaving the door wide open for future Democratic presidents to easily get the U.S. back into another Paris. This is precisely what happened in Canada. In 2011, the Conservative government withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol but did not withdraw from the FCCC. So when the Conservatives lost power in 2015, it was easy for the new Liberal government to agree to another FCCC-based treaty-the Paris Agreement. The agreement starts, "This Agreement shall be open for signature ... by States ... that are Parties to the Convention." Therefore, had Canada no longer been party to the Convention, signing on to Paris would have been more difficult. As with most weeds, a thick, healthy lawn, mowed high, is your best defense against dandelions. Similarly, the best defense against expensive and unwarranted climate change agreements is healthy, open debate, independent of political correctness. Trump has done Americans a great service by encouraging the debate. Now, he has to finish the job and pull the Paris weed out by its roots by withdrawing the U.S. from the FCCC. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000016-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 6/30/2017 5:45:43 PM Letter to the editor supporting Sec. Perry just published in Texas Nice letter to the editor by Tom Harris defending Sec. Perry: h ://www.m statesman.com/news/o inion/lettcrs-thc-cditor-·u1 2017/t6mXKt0Mlh0XVfnsPwdyOI/ Re: June 23 article, "Pc defends his stance on climate chan°c bud 0 et." Environmentalists often present Al Gore's stance on climate change as an irrefutable truth. But scientific theories are not truth; they are educated opinions based on interpretations of observations and so can be wrong. Philosophers since ancient times have understood that observations cannot establish truth. This is especially the case in the complex field of climate science. So, Energy Secretary Rick Perry was right to ask Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., during the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing about President Trump's 2018 energy department budget request, "Don't you think it's OK to have this conversation about the science of climate change ... What's wrong with being a skeptic?" Nothing, of course. Real science is all about skepticism. I wish more politicians had the courage to say this. TOM HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE SCIENCE COALITION, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) P.O. Box 23013 Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2 Canada www.climatcscicnceintcmational.org 613-728-9200 Note: To help ICSC cover its operating expenses, please go here: h ://tin url.com/3ttkw82. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000017-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 8/6/2017 2:50:23 PM Nature magazine discusses Heartland's role in "Red Team" FYI. Evidence we are flying over the right target. Joe h ://www.nature.com/news/fears-rise-for-us-climate-re 1.22391 ort-as-trum -officials-take-reins- Nature 548, 15-16 (03 August 2017) doi: 10.1038/548015a Fears rise for US climate report as Trump officials take reins Officials at the US Environmental Protection Agency are consulting global-warming sceptics as they weigh up a technical review. By Jeff Tollefson A sweeping US government report on the state of climate-change science is nearing the finish line, but researchers who wrote it aren't ready to relax just yet. Federal scientists have twice reviewed the roughly 600-page document - which examines everything from shifting weather patterns to rising sea levels - as have the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Just one hurdle remains, but it may be the highest: final sign-off by top officials in President Donald Trump's administration, many of whom are sceptical of climate science. Although there have not yet been any signs of trouble, researchers are keeping a close eye on how the White House and federal agencies handle the science report - a technical prelude to the fourth National Climate Assessment, a legally mandated analysis of the causes and impacts of global warming that is due in 2018. Many climate scientists are particularly uneasy about the potential for interference by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of 13 agencies that must approve the science report before its expected release in November. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who rejects wellestablished climate science, has raised the possibility of organizing an adversarial 'red team-blue SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000018-00001 team' review of such research. And he has help from the Heartland Institute, a think tank in Chicago, Illinois, that promotes scepticism about climate change. "We can't allow science to be held hostage," says Donald Wuebbles, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and co-chair of the report. "I'm hopeful it won't get to that, because it would look really bad for the administration to fight this." It wouldn't be the first time that a Republican president had sought to stymie the United States' national climate-assessment process. The administration of George W. Bush came under fire for ignoring the first National Climate Assessment, which was released by then-President Bill Clinton in 2000. After the Bush administration subsequently missed the legal deadline in 2004 to complete a second assessment, environmentalists sued the government in federal court to compel the report's release - and won. The message of the latest science report - that human-caused global warming poses urgent problems for the United States - isn't likely to sit well with the White House. The Trump administration has sought to repeal environmental regulations and cut climate research. Energy secretary Rick Perry has joined Pruitt in questioning climate science. And Pruitt's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, once worked for Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma), a prominent climate sceptic. "It would look really bad for the administration to fight this." "This is going to be the first big test in the climate arena," says Tammy Dickinson, who led the energy and environment division at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) under president Barack Obama. One major issue, she adds, is that Trump has vet to fill many positions at the OSTP - which has coordinated work on the last three government climate assessments - or high-level science posts at federal agencies that work on climate change. At the EPA, rank-and-file staff say that they haven't been told who will sign off on the science report, or how the OSTP will manage the final review process. Agency scientists told Nature that climate change has become taboo in their discussions with EPA leadership. The fact that agency leaders have consulted with climate sceptics has only added to the confusion. One EPA official, who asked for anonymity because of career concerns, provided Nature with two lists circulating among Pruitt's team that seem to have been compiled by the Heartland Institute. One list, labelled "climate scientists", contains the names of more than 140 people, including many climate sceptics; the second names several dozen climate economists. The Heartland Institute would not comment on the documents, but a spokesman confirmed that Heartland has provided the EPA with names of people for a climate science 'red team'. Many agency researchers assume that Pruitt will use the lists to assemble that team, but some fear that it could be used to identify candidates for empty slots on the EPA' s Board of Scientific Counselors, which advises the agency's research arm. An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the lists or the science report. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000018-00002 For the anonymous official, the question now is whether the adversarial approach embodied by the 'red team' idea will drive the Trump administration to delay the science report. "They are aware of the report," the official says. "We don't know what they are going to do." Then there is the broader national climate assessment, which will delve into questions that have profound implications for government policy, such as how coastal communities should respond to rising seas. That document is expected to go out to federal agencies this month. Pruitt will have to be careful how he handles both documents, says Kyla Bennett, a former EPA ecologist who now works for the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in North Easton, Massachusetts. The EPA could ignore the climate report's findings while implementing policies that affect the oil, gas and coal industries, which Trump has vowed to protect and promote. But if the administration pushes regulations that ignore mainstream climate science, Bennett says, it is likely to face lawsuits from environmental and science groups. "The EPA is supposed to be using the best science out there," she says. "They can't just suddenly say the Earth is flat, CO2 is not a pollutant and coal is the best thing for the world." Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/3 77-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000018-00003 constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000018-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 7/17/2017 11 :40:27 PM H. Sterling Burnett in Breitbart on China as a "climate leader" Another good piece. Joe h ://www.brcitbart.com/bi - ovemment/20 l 7/07 /l 7/h-stcrlin -bumctt-china-will-ncverclimatc-leader-unless-payoff/ Breitbart 7/17/17 China Will Never Be a Climate Leader Payoff Unless There Is a By: H. Sterling Burnett, the Heartland Institute Many of the stories on radio, television, and in print issued following President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the costly Paris climate agreement claimed America's absence from the accord means China has ascended as one of the world's leaders in the battle against human-caused climate change. Indeed, just hours after Trump's announcement, at a summit aimed at promoting closer economic ties between China and the European Union (EU), Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang and the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, stood proudly before a multitude of reporters to denounce Trump's decision and announce Europe and China would forge ahead with the Paris climate agreement. Good luck with that! The United States has led the world in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, and it wasn't due to regulations or the Paris climate agreement. The natural-gas revolution-which has largely been made possible by fracking, a process demonized by many of the same people who support the Paris agreement-has significantly cut carbon-dioxide emissions. Over the past decade, CO2 emissions have fallen by more than 12 percent. This incredible decline should continue in future years, too, because natural-gas-related companies and products are improving their efficiency SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000019-00001 daily. By contrast, China's CO2 emissions surpassed U.S. emissions 15 years before they were expected to (more than a decade ago). China is now, by a substantial margin, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. It's true China's per-capita emissions are declining, but that happens in virtually every country whose citizens experience the kind of higher personal income levels we're now seeing in China, because people become more willing to pay for costlier environmental amenities as they gain access to more wealth. Because economic growth in China has slowed considerably and to limit its horrific air pollution problems, China is reducing the rate at which its coal use has grown in recent years, but it is D-91reducing total coal use or its carbon-dioxide emissions. China has also significantly reduced its state-established targets for new solar installations, diverting the solar panels previously slated to be used in the domestic market to the export market, flooding Europe and the United States with below-cost solar panels that have put many domestic manufacturers out of business. Additionally, it's worth noting China regularly takes its massive wind farms offline during times of low demand for electricity, and it has built many turbines that are not even linked to the grid, generating power that ends up getting distributed to no one. These turbines are similar to China's ghost cities, many of which were built to artificially drive economic growth. They still dot the Chinese countryside, uninhabited and falling into disrepair. It should be remembered all those ghost wind turbines and cities required a lot of concrete, steel, and fossil fuels to constructadding to China's carbon-dioxide emissions. China is also promoting the construction of coal-fired power plants across the globe, building or financing large plants on the African continent and in India, Indonesia, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Turkey, and Vietnam. China is exporting its carbon-dioxide emissions, allowing it to escape much of the blame regularly hurled by environmentalists at governments believed to be destroying the planet. Under the terms of the Paris accord, China doesn't have to agree to cut its emissions. In fact, China admits its emissions will peak by at least 2030. But what matters is not when they peak but the level at which they do so. If they peak at double or quadruple what China's carbondioxide emissions are today, then all the emissions cuts made by the rest of the world won't offset the contributions made by China to the globe's total carbon-dioxide concentration level. Indeed, the sham marriage between China and the European Union over the Paris climate agreement lasted less than a day-even shorter than the nine days it took for Cher to file for divorce from Gregg Allman! China scuttled the proposed joint communique that would have been issued by it and the European Union announcing their planned climate cooperation, because the Chinese government had serious disagreements about trade issues, including the European Union's refusal to drop its World Trade Organization investigations into allegations China has been dumping below-cost steel into European markets. As with so many of the climate disasters hyped by alarmists, the planned joint commitment to the Paris climate agreement ultimately failed to materialize because national priorities overcame joint action. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000019-00002 How can the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world-one committed to growing emissions for the foreseeable future-be a leader in emissions reductions? It can't. The environmentalists and global bureaucrats propagating such a notion are, at best, engaging in wishful thinking that is motivated by their hatred of Trump. Americans should reject this hogwash! H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. ,.:.:.::=r.!.:"'~~.1:\t":Nd:=:::.::..:::==::.::..,::ic1• a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000019-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 7/7/2017 4:28:24 PM Heartland on President Trump's Poland speech http:// am erica n-exceptio nal ism .o rg/trum p-def e nds-weste rn-va Iues-i n-speech-to-thepol is h-peop le/ Trump Defends Western Values in Speech to the Polish People By Sam Karnick In a speech in Warsaw, Poland today, U.S. President Donald Trump powerfully asserted an unabashed belief in Western (indeed, Christian) values and expressed a traditional American sense of optimism and determination in promising to defend those values and the people who hold them: I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph. The speech demonstrates a rather surprising mastery of rhetoric, using a visit to a foreign nation to emphasize the commonalities of the two nations' struggle for liberty while continually directing a strong defense of American values to the audience at home in the United States. In addition to his usual pithy, simple wording, Trump includes some longer sentences, less-familiar words, and more complex thoughts than U.S. audiences are accustomed to hearing from him. It's an extraordinary speech. What is most interesting of all is that it strikes us as unusual for an American president openly to defend Western civilization from its detractors both within and outside. Instead of an apology tour or a crusade to bring democracy to nations where it has no chance of surviving, Trump goes to another nation and praises the heroism of the common people in defending their homeland and fighting to retain their religion, language, and traditional institutions. In so doing, he clearly endorses such endeavors for his own nation. In observing that the strength of a nation is in the character of its people, Trump is telling his own country just where we have gone wrong and how we can get right again: "So, together, let us all fight like the Poles-for family, for freedom, for country, and for God." Yes, let's. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000020-00001 Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000020-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 6/29/2017 2:24:03 PM Trump is right about alternative energy: Des Moines Register h ://www.desmoincsrc istcr.com/sto lo inion/columnists/2017 /06/28/wh -trum power-and-hi s-detractors-wrong/43 5 59800 l / t-wind- Des Moines Register 6/29/17 Why Trump is Right About Wind Power and His Detractors Are Wrong By: Isaac Orr and Fred Palmer, The Heartland Institute President Donald Trump has come under fire from wind-energy advocates for comments he made during a recent speech in Cedar Rapids. While promoting his "America First" energy plan, Trump stated, "I don't want to just hope the wind blows to light up your homes and your factories ... as the birds fall to the ground." Predictably, wind advocates and liberal news outlets were quick to point out that 36.5 percent of the electricity generated in Iowa in 2016 came from wind - the highest percentage of any state - and they took issue with his comment about birds. However, these criticisms are missing the point. Wind energy is less reliable and more expensive than coal or natural gas, and despite high rates of wind power, carbondioxide emissions have increased in Iowa at a time when they have fallen in 33 other states. All these factors raise the question: What does anyone gain from subsidizing wind power? Most of Iowa's electricity needs are met thanks to coal-fired power plants, which accounted for 47 percent of all the electricity generated in the state in 2016. (Nuclear accounted for approximately 9 percent and the remainder was powered by natural gas.) Coal is the primary means of generating electricity in the Hawkeye State because the average wind turbine in Iowa produces electricity only ar proximately 34 percent of the time. Whether Iowa gets large amounts of electricity from wind power is immaterial; the turbines sit idle 66 percent of the time, and when they are idle, coal shoulders the load. Trump was 100 percent correct to say coal, not wind, keeps the lights on in homes and factories. Wind is also much more expensive than traditional forms of power, such as coal and natural gas, because of high construction and maintenance costs. Electricity generated from wind is 2.7 times more expensive than electricity produced at existing coal-fired power plants and greater than 3.1 times more expensive than existing natural-gas plants. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000021-00001 Further, claims suggesting wind power is somehow cost competitive with coal and natural gas are pure fantasy - unless one factors in the generous tax credits lavished on wind producers. The federal government grants wind producers federal tax credits of 24 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), and the state of Iowa provides an additional 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour generated on wind farms. In total, the tax credits reaped are 3.9 cents/kWh. It is these tax credits, not the inherent economics of wind turbines, that stimulate growth. You don't have to take our word for it, either. Warren Buffett, the world-famous owner of Berkshire Hathaway and MidAmerican Energy, which owns the largest wind farms in Iowa, once candidly stated: "On wind energy, we get a tax credit ifwe build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." How is it that wind advocates consider wind a "sustainable" form of energy when it is hopelessly dependent on transfusions of funds in the form of federal and state tax incentives for financial solvency? Adding insult to injury, despite having the highest percentage of electricity generated from wind in the country, Iowa's carbon-dioxide emissions increased by 5.2 percent from 2000 to 2014. During the same period, 33 other states saw their CO2 emissions decline. Isn't reducing CO2 emissions the whole point of building wind farms in the first place? While the Washington Post and the wind lobby jumped on Trump's comments about birds, there are far more serious issues regarding wind energy that are not being discussed, and that is truly a disservice to the country. Regardless of whether wind turbines kill more birds than cats, buildings, or other forms of energy, we need to talk about why wind is not a benefit to electricity consumers and repeal policies that promote the expansion of wind and solar at the expense of more-affordable, more-reliable options. Isaac Orr is a research fellow specializing in energy and environmental policy at The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank founded in 1984. Fred Palmer is a senior fellow for energy policy at the institute. Contact: IOrr@heartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000021-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 7/14/2017 8:49:26 PM Sterling Burnett: NY Magazine Climate Doomsaying Follows Familiar, Badly Mistaken Pattern This article will appear at The Federalist shortly, thought you'd like to see it first. Tme believers scream the loudest as their movements wane ... the global warming movement is dying fast. Articles like "The Uninhabitable Earth" are simply proof of this. Joe From: Jim Lakely Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 2:51 PM To: Heartland Institute Users Cc: Tim Huelskamp;i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy- Hueslcamp Gmail i Edward Hudgins Subject: Op-ed Burnett: NY Magazine Climate Doomsaying Follows Familiar, Badly Mistaken Pattern Good afternoon, Heartlanders. Below is a 1,747-word op-ed by Sterling Burnett written on spec and by request of The Federalist. -Jim NY Magazine Climate Doomsaying Follows Familiar, Badly Mistaken Pattern By H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. More than 100 years ago, it was not uncommon to find people, usually men, standing on street corners of major cities holding large placards or signs proclaiming, "Repent, the End is Near." Most people crossed the street to avoid these doomsayers and their rants SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000022-00001 of the impending destruction of Earth. Nowadays, such latter-day prophets of the apocalypse lead government agencies-or even entire governments-are invited to testify in the halls of Congress, and write lengthy jeremiads in New York Magazine, as David Wallace-Wells did on July 9. In his article, "The Uninhabitable Earth," Wallace-Wells issues numerous dire warnings, following in a long line of seers of impending planetary climate doom who have proclaimed only radical action in the form of abandoning the use of fossil fuels can save the planet For instance, in his 2006 review of Al Gore's book/movie An Inconvenient Truth, James Hansen, former director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned, "We have, at most, 10 years-not 10 years to decide upon action, but 10 years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions ... We have reached a critical tipping point. It will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences." In 2009, Hansen revised his prediction of doom for the worse, writing, "The dangerous threshold of greenhouse gases is actually lower than what we told you a few years ago. Sorry about that mistake. If the world does not make a dramatic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return." (Hansen's tipping point date passed has already passed twice.) Also in 2009, Gordon Brown, who was then serving as the prime minister of the United Kingdom, informed countries attempting to negotiate binding, steep greenhouse-gas emissions reductions at a United Nations-sponsored climate conference in Copenhagen, "There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: Once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then, it will be irretrievably too late." Of course, no deal was reached, so by Brown's own logic, it's too late to save us. Wallace-Wells puts his warning of doom this way: "It is, I promise, worse than you think. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000022-00002 If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today .... Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century ... no matter how wellinformed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough." Wallace-Wells blends speculation with misstated facts, misdirection, and overstated claims to weave a nightmarish scenario of the end of the world if humans don't repent of their sinful use of fossil fuels. Antarctica Adding Ice His paper is too long for a point-by-point refutation, so I'll address just a few important comments briefly. One niggling issue arises when Wallace-Wells describes the recent calving of an iceberg the size of Delaware from the fourth-largest ice shelf in Antarctica. Wallace-Wells hints this widely publicized event was due to global warming, but it wasn't The scientists have been tracking this collapse for more than a decade and say it is due to natural causes. Indeed, scientists expect the ice shelf the iceberg broke off from to continue growing. Why? Well it turns out, contrary to climate model projections Antarctica has been adding tens of thousands of tons of ice each year for millennia. A study by NASA published in the =-=.;=..:....:..::::..:....:::;..:.....;=-=-=~u.. shows snow in Antarctica began a long-term accumulation 10,000 years ago and is adding much more ice to the continent each year than it is losing. NASA's analysis reveals Antarctica experienced a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice annually from 1992 to 2001, slowing to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. As a result, Antarctica is reducing sea level rise by 0.23 millimeters per year. More recent research shows the ice mass on the East Antarctic ice sheet, which is 1,000 percent larger than the declining West Antarctic ice sheet, is adding ice, has been stable for an estimated and is likely to remain stable for at least C::....:::....:::.....L,..=.;:::;., .;:;...:::....:::.....L,..==- Wallace-Wells also simply misstates the facts concerning rising temperatures. Wallace- SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000022-00003 Wells claims "last month's satellite data show the globe warming, since 1998, more than twice as fast as scientists had thought." Even Penn State climate researcher __ _ =~, one of the most visible advocates for the theory humans are causing dangerous climate change, says this claim is "just not true." The truth is data from global satellites, weather balloons, and even the highly doctored ground based temperature measurements demonstrate the amount and rate of global warming over the past half century is considerably lower than the average predictions of climate models. In fact, Mann says Wallace-Wells' article consistently overstates even the extreme projections of climate models, calling the NY Magazine article a "doomist framing" of climate science. Wallace-Wells scares readers with the claim warming threatens to melt the frozen tundra, unleashing torrents of the powerful greenhouse-gas methane that has lain trapped for eons in the permafrost into the atmosphere, significantly raising Earth's temperature. However, Mann's response to this claim is the science "doesn't support the notion of a 'planet-melting methane bomb."' Among the reason's Wallace-Well's methane claims are so outlandish is any methane released would be gradual, and methane has a relatively short atmospheric life. (It's removed from the atmosphere less than 10 years after introduction.) Wallace-Wells claims many of Earth's regions would become uninhabitable because of increased global temperature, but those statements do not hold up to scrutiny. Any temperature rise driven by anthropogenic forces will not be uniform in nature. Rather, the coldest, least-hospitable places-under the theory, anyway-are likely to warm the most, with temperate regions along and around the equator expected to experience little if any increase in temperature. Warming Saves lives Making cold places moderately warmer makes them more suitable for life and better for agriculture. :......:....:::::...:::......:....:::.......;==....:..:....:.....:....:....:.=--==.:....:..;::;..;::c.:: examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 mill ion deaths. The authors determined cold weather, directly or indirectly, kills 1,700 percent more people than hot weather. As Jane Brody, the author of The New York Times story discussing the article noted, "Over time, as global temperatures rise, milder winter temperatures are likely to result in fewer coldrelated deaths, a benefit that could outweigh a smaller rise in heat-caused mortality." In short, for health, cold weather is bad, hot weather is good. Get it? Even heat-related deaths in a warmer world should decline, as wealthier future generations in developing countries increasingly gain access to modern health care and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000022-00004 adopt technologies such as air conditioning, which have made places such as Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and New Mexico habitable for millions of people. Despite often extreme heat, and the fact more people live in the Southwest than at any time in the past, fewer people die from heat-related illnesses than ever before. Flawed Farm Report And then there is what I take to be the biggest fib in the NY Magazine article: a claim in the section titled "The End of Food" that alleges crops will increasingly fail and famine and starvation will increase in a warmer world. Even as the world has warmed over the past 150 years, crops-including staple grains and cereals like rice, corn, and wheat-have regularly set records year over year. You heard that right; during the period of purported dangerous warming, crop yields have increased and starvation and malnutrition have fallen dramatically. This should not surprise anyone who understands agronomy and plant biology. Most of the warming experienced has reduced nighttime lows in the winter, rather than increasing daytime highs in the summer. Fewer frosty nights is better for agriculture, as it extends the growing season. Additionally, the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have contributed to a general greening of Earth. Many crop and non-crop plants evolved when carbondioxide levels were much higher than they are today and thus do better (grow faster and bigger) when carbon-dioxide increases. Copious amounts of research confirm this. Because carbon-dioxide improves plant growth, greenhouse operators artificially add it to their greenhouses. They also regularly artificially heat their greenhouses, because despite the increased carbon-dioxide concentrations, the optimum temperature is not reached with the addition of carbon dioxide and sunlight alone. Further, it's also worth noting that under higher carbon-dioxide conditions, plants use water more efficiently. Even as temperatures rise, they lose less water to transpiration, leaving more of it for fruit, root, and leaf growth. One study involving 32 researchers who represented nine countries published in Nature Climate Change-using three long-term satellite-derived leaf area index (LAI) records and 10 global ecosystem models-found, from 1982 through 2009, "a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning)." They traced this global greening directly to the carbon-dioxide fertilization effect, which they said explains 70 percent of the observed greening. This has been confirmed by satellites, which show areas of desert are being reclaimed by vegetation because of increasing carbon-dioxide levels. I guess the scientists consulted by Wallace-Wells missed all the research demonstrating carbon dioxide is good for plants! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000022-00005 I don't often agree with Michael Mann, but concerning Wallace-Wells' "The Uninhabitable Earth," his conclusion is spot on: "The article argues that climate change will render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century," Mann told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article fails to produce it." H. SterlingBurnett,Ph.D. =;..;;;;;.;;..;;..;;..;;;;..'"'~'+;,_"'":.a_•h=;..;;;;.;;..=;..;;...;;;;;.;~;;;;,., is a research fellow on energy and the environmentat The Heartland Institute,a nonpartisan,nonprofitresearch center headquarteredin ArlingtonHeights, Illinois. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000022-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 6/26/2017 5:25:46 PM Rick Perry was right: CO2 is not the control knob of climate ht-on-cnbc-co2-is-notthe-control-knob-of-climate Rick Perry Was Right on CNBC: CO2 Is not the Control Knob of Climate June 23, 2017 By Jim Lakely When you know what's going on - and know the science - you realize that it's Keith Seitter of the AMS who has some explaining to do, not Rick Perry. To hear the corrupt, know-nothing mainstream media tell it, Energy Secretary Rick Perry really stepped in it when he said human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the major driver of global warming. And, as usual with the MSM, it's not true. The story is merely fodder for a false narrative about Perry, and the state of climate science. On Monday, CNBC "Squawk Box" host Joe Kernen asked the secretary whether he believes carbon dioxide "is the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate." Perry's answer: No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in .... The fact is this shouldn't be a debate about, 'Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?' Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that? Perry's answer is miles ahead, and smarter, than his predecessors in the Obama administration -who merely parroted the bromides of the climate alarmism industry, and never looked under the hood of the science. Is CO2 the "control knob" of the climate? No. Are the oceans? Well ... that's complicated. No serious scientist, uncorrupted by the CO2-is-to-blame racket, would say there is a single "control knob" that controls the climate. So, on this point, Perry is 100 percent correct. And CNBC is not the ideal place for a deeper discussion of how the earth's oceans absorb and release heat and CO2 as part of a very complex planetary ecosystem that we are decades away from fully understanding, if ever. Perry had 15 seconds to answer. Give him a break - and points to him for getting closer than any Obama-era cabinet official. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000023-00001 Yet, of course, HuffPost and other MSM outlets made a phony big deal about Perry's answer. They lifted up a ridiculous outrage letter by Keith L. Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorolo ical Socie (AMS), which said it is "critically important" that Perry understand that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are, indeed, the "primary driver" of climate change. "This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence," Seitter wrote. "It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion." Well, if Seitter considers the AMS a "scientific institution," and I'm guessing he does, he's misrepresenting his own organization. According to a 2013 survey of the AMS: Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals. The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist. Hmmm. A signatory of that AMS report is none other than Keith Seitter. Strange. Let's dig deeper. The central question in the survey consisted of two parts: "Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?" Answer options were: Yes: Mostly human Yes: Equally human and natural Yes: Mostly natural Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause] Yes: Don't know cause Don't know if global warming is happening Global warming is not happening Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause. So ... the "conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence," according to Seitter's own organization, is that there is no conclusion that SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000023-00002 human-emitted CO2 is the "control knob" of climate. Is The Heartland Institute misinterpreting the data? Not according to climate scientist Judith Curry, who is no "denier." In summary, Heartland's interpretation is not a misrepresentation of the actual survey results, although the authors and the AMS are interpreting the results in a different way. A better survey might have avoided some of the ambiguity in the interpretation, but there seems to be no avoiding the fact that the survey showed that 48% of the AMS professional members do not think that most of the warming since 1850 is attributable to humans. When you know what's going on - and know the science - you realize that it's Keith Seitter who has some explaining to do, not Rick Perry. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000023-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 5/26/2017 3:23:22 PM Anatomy of a Deep State - WSJ - and would you like to be invited? Friends, Today's Wall Street Journal reports, in the article below, a meeting to be convened in June by EPA's "Science Integrity Official" that seems to lack individuals with, shall we say, "science integrity." I'm just starting to think about this, but. .. * I have a list of about 300 scientists and economists who specialize in climate change and are not dependent on EPA grants, all with advanced degrees and with publications in the field, who perhaps could be invited to attend this meeting. You may have your own similar list. * If you have advice on whether/how I might ask Francesca Grifo to invite these folks, please share it with me. I suppose a simple letter or email from me to her might get more attention if someone else on the Bee line of this message were to provide insight into how it ought to be phrased, to whom it should be sent or cc'ed, etc. * Please let me know if you would be interested in attending this meeting, and perhaps supply names and contact info for others who would be. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000024-00001 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. h s://www. ws · .com/articles/anatom -of-a-dee -statc-14957 53640 Anatomy of a Deep State The EPA's 'Science Integrity Official' is plotting to undermine Trump's agenda. Kimberley A. StrasselMay 25, 2017 7:07 p.m. ET ByKimberley A. Strassel On May 8 a woman few Americans have heard of, working in a federal post that even fewer know exists, summoned a select group of 45 people to a June meeting in Washington. They were almost exclusively representatives of liberal activist groups. The invitation explained they were invited to develop "future plans for scientific integrity" at the Environmental Protection Agency. Meet the deep state. That's what conservatives call it now, though it goes by other names. The administrative state. The entrenched governing elite. Lois Lerner. The federal bureaucracy. Whatever the description, what's pertinent to today's Washington is that this cadre of federal employees, accountable to no one, is actively working from SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000024-00002 within to thwart Donald Trump's agenda. There are few better examples than the EPA post of Scientific Integrity Official. (Yes, that is an actual job title.) The position is a legacy of Barack Obama, who at his 2009 inaugural promised to "restore science to its rightful place"-his way of warning Republicans that there'd be no more debate on climate change or other liberal environmental priorities. Team Obama directed federal agencies to implement "scientific integrity" policies. Most agencies tasked their senior leaders with overseeing these rules. But the EPA-always the overachiever-bragged that it alone had chosen to "hire a senior level employee" whose only job would be to "act as a champion for scientific integrity throughout the agency." In 2013 the EPA hired Francesca Grifo, longtime activist at the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Grifo had long complained that EPA scientists were "under siege"-according to~~...;._;; she helped write-by Republican "political appointees" and "industry lobbyists" who had "manipulated" science on everything from "mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate science." As Scientific Integrity Official, Ms. Grifo would have the awesome power to root out all these meddlesome science deniers. A 2013 Science magazine story reported she would lead an entire Scientific Integrity Committee, write an annual report documenting science "incidents" at the agency, and even "investigate" science problems-alongside no less than the agency's inspector general. And get this: "Her job is not a political appointment," the Science article continues, "so it comes with civil service protections." Here was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new administration. Ms. Grifo scientists seems to meetings perhaps wasn't too busy in the Obama years, since EPA were given carte blanche to take over the economy. She have been uninterested when EPA scientists used secret and private email to collude with environmental groups-a SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000024-00003 practice somewhat lacking in scientific integrity. She has been busier these past few months. In March the Sierra Club demanded that the EPA's inspector general investigate whether the agency's newly installed administrator, Scott Pruitt, had violated policy by suggesting carbon dioxide might not be the prime driver of global warming. The inspector general referred the matter to ... the Scientific Integrity Official. So now an unelected, unappointed activist could pass judgment on whether the Senate-confirmed EPA chief is too unscientific to run his own agency. So much for elections. There's also that "scientific integrity" event planned for June. Of the 45 invitations, only one went to an organization ostensibly representing industry, the American Chemistry Council. A couple of academics got one. The rest? Earthjustice. Public Citizen. The Natural Resources Defense Council. Center for Progressive Reform. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Environmental Defense Fund. Three invites alone for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Anyone want to guess how the meeting will go? This is a government employee using taxpayer funds to gather political activists on government grounds to plot-let's not kid ourselves-ways to sabotage the Trump administration. Ms. Grifo did not respond to a request for comment. Messrs. Pruitt and Trump should take the story as a hint of the fight they face to reform government. It's hard enough to overcome a vast bureaucracy that ideologically opposes their efforts. But add to the challenge the powerful, formalized resistance of posts, all across the government, like the Scientific Integrity Official. Mr. Obama worked hard to embed his agenda within government to ensure its survival. Today it is the source of leaks, bogus whistleblower complaints, internal sabotage. Pitched battle with these folks is no way to govern. The better answer is dramatic agency staff cuts-maybe start with the post of Scientific Integrity Official?-as well as greater care in hiring true professionals for key bureaucratic posts. The sooner department heads recognize and take action against that deep state, the sooner this administration might begin to drain the swamp. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000024-00004 Write to ~~;,....:...::..::::;.L:....:::....::::..:.....::.· Appeared in the May 26, 2017, print edition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000024-00005 To: From: Sent: Subject: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHO~ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy j Joseph Bast '·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·' Wed 5/24/2017 8:00:40 PM FW: FW: Heartland Institute Experts React to President Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget FYI. Joe From: Billy Aouste Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 3:00 PM To: Heartland Institute Users Subject: FW: Heartland Institute Experts React to President Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Good Afternoon Everyone, The following press release will go out to 26,777 Chicago, Environment, Energy, Political, and regional press and media contacts. Sincerely, Billy I Heartland Institute Experts React to President Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget President Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled his budget for Fiscal Year 2018, which begins October 1. Mitch Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, says the budget eliminates 66 federal agencies or programs, will save $26.7 billion this year, and will balance the budget in 10 years. However, the $4.1 trillion budget spends about the same as last year, including $639 billion on defense, a $52 billion increase. The blueprint also predicts the nation's economy will grow by 3 percent a year, a sharp increase from the average of the Obama administration of less than 2 percent. Among the programs this budget cuts: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), HOME Investment Partnerships Program, National Wildlife SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000025-00001 Refuge Fund, Energy Star and Voluntary Climate Programs, Green Climate Fund, and Global Climate Change Initiative. The following statements from policy experts at The Heartland institute - a free-market think tank- may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at media@heartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 847/445-7554. "President Trump's budget proposes many long overdue budget cuts, adding up to trillions in gross reductions from the baseline over the next 10 years. Trump proposes to balance the budget in 10 years entirely with those spending reductions, and no tax increases. The proposed budget in fact incorporates tax reform by sharply reducing tax rates, as well as repealing and replacing Obamacare, which would cut taxes by about $1 trillion over 10 years. "Those policies, plus the spending cuts and President Trump's deregulation, are tremendously pro-growth -which makes the budget's increased growth assumptions actually quite conservative and likely to be exceeded in practice, as a long overdue, booming recovery from the 2008 recession finally ensues, correcting a central Obama failure. The end result of that would be to sharply reduce the national debt as a percent of GDP, down to 60 percent by the projections of Trump's Office of Management and Budget." Peter Ferrara Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy The Heartland Institute pferrara@heartland.org 703/582-8466 Mr. Ferrara is the author a/Power to the People: The New Road to Freedom and Prosperity for the Poor, Seniors, and Those Most in Need of the World's Best Health Care (2015), and The Obamacare Disaster (2010). "Presidential budget proposals are best thought of as statements of principles, as opposed to actual economic plans, and President Trump's proposal is no different. Balancing the federal budget in 10 years is an audacious goal, but this proposal demonstrates the president's willingness to start down that road. "Achieving that goal will, by necessity, require changing the largest driver of federal spending: entitlement spending. No amount of projected growth will hand-wave away that mathematical reality. At some point, either now or later, lawmakers will need to make tough choices, and perhaps break campaign promises, if it means coming to terms with the reality of federal debt by cutting or reforming entitlement program spending. "The sooner this problem is dealt with, the easier it'll be for everyone, and Trump's proposal is a good starting place for lawmakers to use when figuring out how to do this. Lawmakers in SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000025-00002 Congress should work with President Trump to fill in some of the proposal's question marks and unaddressed questions, but sticking to the proposal's outlines where feasible would definitely restore the proper role and size of the federal government." Jesse Hathaway Research Fellow, Budget and Tax Policy The Heartland Institute Managing Editor, Budget & Tax News jhathaway@heartland.org 312/377-4000 "President Trump's budget proposal shows great care in establishing that the costs of government programs reflect their claimed benefits. Items such as means-testing of assistance to farmers, state sharing of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending, and the option of states receiving block grants of Medicaid funding can make a big difference in federal spending over time, without forcing any big changes in what the government does. The proposed budget would also increase military spending, though not nearly on the level of what President Ronald Reagan did. "All of that points to the conservatism of the budget proposal. It would not change things greatly, except for slowing the rate of growth of government. That, however, is a positive change - and one that the president's political enemies will characterize as a dire threat to the nation's future. That reflects the sad state of the nation's current political culture." S.T. Karnick Director of Publications The Heartland Institute skamick@hcartland.org 312/377-4000 "We've long needed to get the country's deficit and debt under control. This budget is a small start, but a start, nonetheless. Every member of the Senate and the House will have a pet project or program that he or she wants to protect from cuts. But let's hope they will put the demands of the Constitution - as well as the people's desire to limit the size of government and put the nation's fiscal house in order - above the desires of the special interests served by pork-barrel, special-interest spending. "Climate programs are a great place to start since they slow economic growth and have no measurable payoff. If it is not a core function of government, the government shouldn't be funding it." H. Sterling Burnett Research Fellow, Environment & Energy Policy The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000025-00003 Managing Editor, Environment & Climate News hbumctt@hcartl and. org 214/909-2368 "President Trump's proposed budget is a mixed bag for budget hawks. The president should be applauded for ending the wealth transfer from the middle-income citizens of the United States to wealthy dictators in developing nations in the name of the Green Climate Fund. However, his decision to increase military spending, and thus this budget's failure to actually reduce overall government spending, is disappointing, especially if Trump is serious about enacting ambitious tax reform." Isaac Orr Research Fellow, Energy and Environment Policy The Heartland Institute iorr@heartland.org 312/377-4000 "Ironically, President Trump's proposed budget takes on risk by trying to play it safe with entitlement reform. Neither Social Security nor Medicare is sustainable in its current form. Maintaining the status quo on these programs is easy now, but it will soon be impossible. "Reducing Medicaid spending is a viable approach to putting patients back in the driver's seat of their health care decisions, as opposed to third-party interlopers blocking the path to innovative health care solutions for the country's needy." Michael Hamilton Research Fellow, Health Care Policy The Heartland Institute Managing Editor, Health Care News mhamilton@hcartland.org 312/377-4000 The Heartland fnstitutc is a 33-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our W cb site or call 312/377-4000. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000025-00004 To: Jesse Hathaway[JHathaway@heartland.org]; Aaron Stover[AStover@heartland.org]; Bette Grande[Bette@BetteGrande.com]; Craig ldso[cidso@co2science.org]; Dan Millern____ Ex._6 - _Personal_Privac~ ____iDon~ld Kendal[DKendal@heartland.org]; Fred Palmer (External)n_Ex. _s-_Personal_Privacy _j H. Sterling Burnett[HBurnett@heartland.org]; Isaac Orr[10rr@_heartlana.org1_Jay lehrJJLehr@heartland.org]; Jim Johnston (External)L._Ex._6 - Personal_Privacy ___ i Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org]; John Nothdurft[JNothdurft@heartland.org]; Peter FerraraJPFerrara2~heartland.org]; Ron Arnold[~~-~~~~~~~~~f~?~"-~r~~iy~-~~~J; Russell Coo~--~~:-~.;-~~-~~~-~-~~-~~!~~:Y-J.?._c!Q:! __________ ; Karnick[SKarnick@heartland.org]; Steve Goreharn Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy :; Timothy Benson[TBenson@heartland.org]; Tom Harris[tom'.liarns@sympat1co.ca] From: Joseph Bast Sent: Wed 5/24/2017 1:50:57 PM Subject: FW: What's in Trump's 2018 budget request for science? h ://www.sciencema .or .ez - rod 1.hul.harvard.edu/news/20 l 7/05/what-s-trum -s-2018budget-request-science What's in Trump's 2018 budget request for science? By Science News StaffMay. 23, 2017, 12:45 PM President Donald Trnmp unveiled his full 2018 budget request to Congress today. The spending plan, for the fiscal year that begins 1 October, fleshes out the so-called skinny budget that the White House released this past March. That plan called for deep cuts to numerous research agencies. But it did not include numbers for some key research agencies, such as the National Science Foundation. Scienceinsider will be scouring today's budget documents for fresh details. Come back to our rolling coverage for analysis and reaction. NIH spending slashed by 22°/o,overhead payments squeezed As expected, the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) budget would be slashed to $26.9 billion in the full Trnmp 2018 budget request. That is $7.7 billion less than NIH's final 2017 budget of $34.6 billion, or a 22% cut. In a widely anticipated move that has already raised alarm bells at research institutes, a White House budget document states that "significant reductions" will come from slashing the overhead payments that NIH now pays to universities on top of the direct research costs for a project. These so-called indirect costs, which are paid at rates now negotiated between individual institutions and the government, currently comprise about 30% ofNIH's total grant funding. The SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000026-00001 variable indirect cost rates would be replaced with a uniform rate of I 0% of total research costs for all NIH grants to reduce paperwork and "the risk for fraud and abuse," states a ==C"-. ==-==== for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A I 0% cap would bring NIH' s indirect costs rate "more in line" with the rate paid by private foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the overall budget document notes. NIH will also work to reduce regulatory burdens on grantees. As in the "skinny" budget ~~~~~:.!., the full NIH budget proposal eliminates the Fogarty International Center, which has a $72 million budget this year. But $25 million would be set aside for other institutes to fund some of the center's global health research and training. In another structural change, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which received $324 million in direct funding this year, would be folded into NIH. It would become a new National Institute for Research on Safety and Quality funded at $272 million from NIH's budget, with an additional $107 million from an existing trust fund for patient-centered outcomes research. One bright spot is that the proposal includes funding mandated by the 21st Century Cures Act for the Obama administration's Cancer Moonshot, Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) neuroscience initiative, and Precision Medicine Initiative's planned I-million volunteer health study. As required by statute, those programs would receive $496 million in Cures funding in 2018, a 41 % increase, from a mandatory funding stream separate from NIH' s regular appropriation. Unlike in previous years, HHS did not hold a budget press briefing where HHS officials usually answer reporters' questions about the proposal. At a House of Representatives ====last week, one Democrat said the cuts would mean 5000 to 8000 fewer research grants in 2018. United for Medical Research, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition which represents many biomedical research advocacy groups, decried the "drastic cuts" to NIH and called them "a significant blow to medical research." Tannaz Rasouli, senior director, public policy and outreach for the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, D.C., says her group is also concerned that the plan to "dismantle" AHRQ then "rebuild it from scratch" could disrupt research. Any restructuring would likely require involvement from Congress, she notes. Both Republicans and Democrats on the committees overseeing NIH' s budget have already called Trump's proposed cuts to NIH a nonstarter. "Thank goodness we don't expect Congress to take this budget seriously," says Jennifer Zeitzer, director oflegislative relations for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. -Jocelyn Kaiser NASA cuts put carbon monitoring effort in crosshairs The request for NASA would kill off a research program necessary for establishing effective SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00002 carbon monitoring in the United States and other countries, potentially jeopardizing the type of carbon accounting necessary to carry out the Paris climate agreement. NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) was begun by congressional mandate in 2010 to develop methods for assessing the greenhouse gas emissions from forests and other natural carbon stocks. While much of the work the $10 million NASA program supports is focused on the United States, it also supports pilot technologies for eventual use in countries such as Colombia, Cambodia, Mexico, and Peru. "These countries rely on this collaboration in order to monitor the forests better," says Pontus Olofsson, a physical geographer at Boston University who has worked on two CMS grants, including a project that tracks tropical forests through time, estimating carbon emissions down to the pixel. "It would be devastating not only for us but also these partner countries." The science program currently supports a wide area of research, including airborne measures of Alaska's interior forests; prototype methane monitors for California regulators; satellite-based assessments of farming emissions; and studies of forest fires in the Amazon basin. Cutting this research would not just cause short-term troubles. It would be a long-lasting setback to combating climate change, says David Victor, an expert on international climate policy at the University of California, San Diego "These programs also lay the foundation for a future verification system," Victor says." Serious treaties to make deep cuts in emissions will require verification, just as serious arms control agreements only work when commitments can be verification. The country needs to start building this capability if we are to be ready to manage the global climate problem." The cut appears to be part of a pattern, Olofsson adds. The request also calls for cuts in international climate programs such as SilvaCarbon, a forest assistance program supported by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service, and they are all links in a chain that is working toward providing effective measures of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. SilvaCarbon, for example, relies on the NASA pilot projects for its collaborations, Olofsson says. "If you take out one piece, it's kind of hard for things to function." The shuttered effort would be part of $59 million in proposed cuts to earth science research grants at the agency, alongside a plan to end five space-based projects: four missions that the agency detailed in March and the elimination of the troubled Radiation Budget Instrument, a tool that was set to fly on the JPSS-2 weather satellite to measure the incoming and outgoing energy of the planet. Overall, the budget of NASA's earth science program would drop 8.9% from enacted 2017 levels, from $1.921 million to $1.754 million. The full budget request otherwise closely matches the "skinny" budget proposed in March. Overall, the Office of Science would drop 1% from enacted 2017 levels, to $5. 712 billion. Heliophysics would see its budget unchanged, while astrophysics would see a boost of 9%, from $7 50 million to $817 million. Planetary science, already a winner in the 2017 budget deal, would see its budget rise even higher, to $1.930 billion. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00003 Robert Lightfoot, NASA's acting director, was upbeat in selling the proposal in a webcast, as befitting someone leading an agency that received $19 .1 billion in proposed financing, a mere 2.8% drop from 2017 levels. "What this budget tells us to do is keep going," he said. "Keep doing what we're doing." The proposed budget also retains plans to eliminate the agency's education office which, it says, "lacks sufficient outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of its programs." Congress has rejected past efforts to restructure that program. -- Paul Voosen At DOE, big cuts at user facilities and a mixed message on ITER The Trump administration would take an ax to the Department of Energy's (DOE' s) Office of Science, the single largest funder of the physical sciences in the United States. Spending for the office would fall 17% to $4.473 billion, the lowest level since 2008, not adjusting for inflation. The ax would fall on some research programs harder than others, however. In particular, DOE's work on biological and environmental research would fall by 43%, as the administration cuts or eliminates much of DO E's climate research. The budget is far from a done deal; Congress still has to come up with its own spending plan for the next fiscal year, which begins 1 October. But even if it doesn't pass, the budget sends a troubling message, says one official at a DOE national laboratory who asked not to be named to avoid repercussions for the lab. "Basically, it says [science] is not important," the official says. "It says, 'We don't care if we have a leadership role in science and technology, we've got other priorities."' The Office of Science funds six research programs, and under the proposed budget all but one would take a significant cut. Basic energy sciences (BES) funds research in chemistry, materials sciences, and condensed matter physics, and supports DO E's synchrotron light sources, neutron sources, and other user facilities. Long the rising star in the DOE portfolio, BES would see its budget fall 16.9% to $1.555 billion. And BES would lose several of its user facilities. For example, two of five nanoscience centers at the office's ten national labs would close and the Stanford SynchrotronRadiation Lightsource would run for three months then be mothballed. All of BES's user facilities would see their budgets cut by 6-10%. Similarly, the high energy physics program would receive a cut of 18.4% to $673 million. There, the cuts would largely come at the expense of research funding and the operations of existing facilities. For example, the administration would shave $20 million simply by running the accelerator complex at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory for 1,800 hours in fiscal year SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00004 2018 instead of the 5,983s it ran in 2016 or the 4,800 hours that DOE consider optimal. Nuclear physics would see its budget fall 19.1% to $503 million. Physicists in that program would be able to run their two major facilities, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, and the Continuous Beam Electron Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Virginia, for just 10 weeks apiece. The budget would also cut funding for construction of the Facility for the $730 million Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State in East Lansing. The project is already 70% done, but DOE would "rebaseline" it, delaying its completion and, inevitably, increasing the total cost. Fusion energy sciences would be cut by 18.4% to $310 million. Nevertheless, the administration seems ready to stay with ITER, the international fusion experiment under construction near Cadarache, France, as it allots $63 million for the project. That's far less than U.S. researchers need to stay on schedule for building their parts of the great machine and would effectively kill the U.S. project, the lab official says: "The words don't say, 'Withdraw from ITER, but for all practical purposes, the numbers do." The biggest loser in the Trump budget is DOE's biological and environmental research (BER) program, whose budget would plummet 43% to $349 million. Much of that cut would come out of DO E's climate modeling research. The BER program contains two main components, biological systems sciences, which fund research such as genomics and advanced biofuel, and earth and environmental systems sciences (EESE), which funds research such as atmospheric monitoring and modeling. And EESE would suffer a cut of 61% to $123.6 million. Among the DOE science programs, the one winner under the Trump budget would be the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which would receive an 11.6% boost to $722 million. But even there, the picture is complicated. Spending on computing research would actually fall, while ASCR would put $197 million toward DOE's exascale computing project--an effort to develop supercomputers than can execute 1 billion billion operations per second. Of course, with all the other cuts in DO E's science programs, it's not clear what all that extra computing power would be used to do. NOAA details cuts to climate research in glowing terms The request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would drastically cut into the agency's climate research, shuttering a host of labs and programs. The agency released a detailed guide to these proposed cuts today - and described the programs on the chopping block in glowing terms that seemed to emphasize their value even as it proposed their elimination. NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), one of the agency's primary research arms, would see its budget drop by 22%, from $514 million to $400 million, under the proposal. Despite these cuts, the proposal reads, the office would continue to "provide robust science that is instrumental to preventing the loss of human life, managing natural resources, and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000026-00005 maintaining a strong economy." OAR's climate-focused program would see a cut of $31 million, with $21 million of it taken from support for competitive research grants. Cuts would also terminate "Arctic research focused on improvements to sea ice modeling and predictions that support the safety of fishermen, commercial shippers, cruise ships, and local communities," the agency notes. The proposal would also eliminate the Air Resources Laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland, ending its "research on air chemistry, mercury deposition, and atmospheric dispersion of harmful materials." Development of an atmospheric model that "has emergency response applications, including tracking mercury deposition and anthrax bioterrorism," would also end, it noted. The agency would also kill Vortex-Southeast, a $5 million "program used to detect, respond to, and warn against tornadoes in the Southeastern United States." And it would eliminate the $1.9 million genomics program at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, which "supports coral monitoring and restoration, fisheries assessments for species such as Bluefin tuna larvae." The agency requested $1.058 billion for the National Weather Service, down 6% from 2017. No need for $11 million for tsunami warning, it says - it will keep only one warning center open and eliminate support for preparedness and innovation research. The agency would also cut $5 million from its next-generation weather model, slowing "the transition of advanced modeling research into operations." And it would save another $5 million by terminating "all development, testing, and implementation of experimental products to extend operational weather outlooks ... from 16 days to 30 days" - a priority of the recent weather bill passed by Congress. All of these cuts, along with those detailed earlier in the administration's "skinny" budget, are likely to face a skeptical Congress that, in signing the recent government-financing deal for 2017, actually boosted the budget of OAR by 6.7%, and strongly supported most of the agency's other programs. Indeed, the only coherence between the administration and Congress could be cuts to NOAA's satellite branch, the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). The Trump proposal would drop the NESDIS budget by 17%, including an already planned cut of $318 million to the GOES-R geostationary satellite program. NOAA's two JPSS polar weather satellites would see small cuts, while the two polar satellites planned to follow in their wake called the Polar Follow On - would face a cut of $189 million this year as NOAA rethinks the satellites' futures in the face of competition from constellations of small commercial satellites. Paul Voosen Basic research takes big hit overall, but would grow at NASA, defense department SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00006 The White House wants to cut federal spending on basic research by 13%, or $4.3 billion, to $28.9 billion, according to the request. Historically, the federal government has provided the bulk of the nation's spending on fundamental science, defined as studies undertaken without "specific applications towards processes or products in mind." In recent years, however, the share of basic research funding provided b the federal government has been slipping, from roughly 70% in 1960s and 1970s to an estimated 44% in 2015. Under the request, just four agencies would see increases in basic research spending. (There are two caveats. First, the comparisons are with the 2016 funding levels; the final 2017 budget was enacted in early May, too late for inclusion in the president's request. Second, these numbers are smaller than the agency's overall research budget because of definitional issues.) • The military's basic science account would get a 6%, $117 million boost to $2.24 billion. The Defense department is a major funding of academic basic research in mathematics, computer science, and engineering. (When compared to actual 2017 spending, however, it appears the 2018 request represents a 1.7% cut from the $2.28 billion the military is expected to spend on basic research this year.) • Basic science at NASA would grow by 3%, or $100 million, to $3.71 billion. • The Smithsonian Institution would get a 4%, or $8 million, boost to $226 million. • The Veterans Affairs department would get a 1%, or $4 million jump to $394 million. Other agencies would see cuts of between 11% and 19%. Some highlights: • The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent agency of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), would lose $3.1 billion, a 19% drop to $12.8 billion. HHS is the nation's single largest funder of basic science, primarily in the biomedical arena. • The Department of Energy's (DOE's) spending would drop by $690 million, or 15%, to about $4 billion. DOE is the nation's largest funder of basic research in the physical sciences. • At the National Science Foundation (NSF), basic science would fall by $620 million, or 13%, to $4.3 billion. NSF is a major funding of basic research outside of biomedical science. • Department of Agriculture spending would fall by $121 million, or 11%, to $952 million. - David Malakoff Reactions: What people are saying about Trump's budget request Scientific societies and other groups are weighing in on the budget request. Here's a sampling of reactions. ITIF: budget should be "dead on arrival" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00007 "Especially when it comes to areas ranging from scientific and engineering research to workforce education and skills, congressional leaders should declare the proposal 'dead on arrival," said Stephen J. Ezell, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington, D.C. "The United States has suffered for more than a decade from chronic underinvestment in basic science, research and development, and technology commercialization, and from insufficient support for small manufacturers. Further reducing federal investment in these kinds of foundational goods will set back the country even further-undermining economic growth, causing standards of living to stagnate, and putting prosperity at risk for future generations of Americans. Yet the administration's budget calls for a nearly 10 percent cut for non-defense R&D. The administration needs to recognize there is a big difference between wasteful spending and critical investments that ensure the U.S. economy, citizens, and businesses thrive. Targeted federal government programs of the sort the administration is suggesting Congress cut are widely used by even the most conservative Republican governors to help businesses in their states compete." AAMC: "devastating" Darrell G. Kirch, president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, D.C., issued a statement that called the deep cuts to NIH and other health programs "devastating." "Cuts of this magnitude would slow or halt vital research that creates hope for millions of Americans fighting chronic and life-threatening diseases. Reducing NIH funding also would harm local and regional economies, resulting in hundreds of thousands of jobs lost both within and outside of the research community. On the world stage, America's standing as a leader in medical research would falter, possibly causing the best and brightest scientists to move to other nations with more robust research enterprises." APA: vulnerable at risk "This budget, if enacted, would jeopardize our nation's educational, scientific and health enterprises and limit access to critically needed mental and behavioral health services," said Antonio E. Puente, president of the American Psychological Society in Washington, D.C. "These cuts would disproportionately affect people living in poverty, people with serious mental illness and other disabilities, women, children, people living with HIV/ AIDS, older adults, ethnic and racial minorities, immigrants, and members of the LGBTQ community." AAAS: how did it come to this? "I don't know how we've gotten to a stage where anyone would consider anything like this," said Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS in Washingotn, D.C. (publisher of Scienceinsider), during a teleconference. "Our preliminary numbers show that total research funding would decline by SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00008 16.8%," a hit that would "devastate America's science and technology enterprise." But Holt hopes the bill won't live long outside of the White House, noting that early responses from members of congress suggest that, once again, Trump has failed to work closely with congress or federal agencies to produce a budget proposal likely to be approved. "It seems that this budget is put together on the basis of ideology and imaginary economics rather than hard facts about. ..what research is productive according to the agencies where the research is funded and done," Holt said. - Lindzi Wessel Census Project: "woefully underfunds" preparations for 2020 count The request for the Census Bureau "woefully underfunds preparations for the national census at a critical phase in the planning," stakeholders of the Census Project in Washington, D.C. said in a statement. The group includes include state and local governments, business and industry, civil rights and labor groups, housing and child advocates and research and professional organizations "that support a complete, fair and accurate census." Here is the rest of their release: "With the delays in recruiting qualified talent to oversee the census planning at both the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce, we hope Congress will not compound the problem by failing to provide sufficient FY 2018 funding for critical data collection and testing for 2020," said Phil Sparks of the Census Project. The administration budget proposes funding the Census Bureau at $1.524 billion for FY 2018, only a $54 million increase over 2017, lagging far behind comparable increases at this stage in advance of previous decennial head counts. Census observers have been concerned the Trump administration and Congress have minimized the significant challenges the bureau faces at this point in the decennial planning cycle and why Census needs an increase in funds now. "This is a recipe for disaster if we are to achieve a fair and inclusive national count mandated by our Constitution," said Sparks. The Census Bureau is facing a daunting array of workload challenges between now and the end of the decade, including the 2017 Economic Census, the annual American Community Survey of about 4 million households per year, and end-to-end testing of new designs for the 2020 decennial census, which will feature the first ever online response option. Congress must approve the FY 2018 appropriations by October 1 this year, on the eve of several key census field tests targeting 700,000 households in Rhode Island, Washington state and West Virginia to finalize operational designs for the 2020 count. Sparks said his group would strongly advocate Congress override the president's request and significantly increase the bureau's funding. "We may be facing an historic disaster unless Congress acts to save the census," Sparks added. Science Coalition opposes "extreme" cuts SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00009 "The extreme funding cuts to science agencies and related programs included in the budget released today would harm America's research enterprise and our nation's leadership in scientific discovery. Basic scientific research, conducted at universities in communities across the country, is the smallest slice of the nation's R&D pie, yet it is the critical spark that ignites discovery and innovation in the United States. "The return on the federal government's investment in research surrounds us. From life changing discoveries to innovations that produce new industries, and from building a STEM workforce to creating new jobs, science-driven innovation has been a powerful driver of the U.S. economy for decades." UCAR worried about Earth science "We are concerned that the administration's proposed cuts to research into the Earth system sciences will undermine the continued scientific progress that is so vitally needed to better protect the nation in the future from costly natural disasters," Antonio J. Busalacchi, the president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, said in a statement. "This would have serious repercussions for the U.S. economy and national security, and for the ability to protect life and property. Such funding cuts would be especially unfortunate at a time when the nation is moving to regain its position as the world leader in weather forecasting." "UCAR is extremely grateful to the bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate that voted to sustain research funding in the current fiscal year. We look forward to working with Congress in the months ahead to maintain the level of funding needed in the fiscal year 2018 budget to support essential Earth system science research." Lung association: "Reject this budget" "Congress must reject this budget," said Harold P. Wimmer, National President and CEO of the American Lung Association in Chicago, Illinois, in a statement. "Rather than putting America's health first, this budget instead puts the health and safety of all Americans-but especially our nation's most vulnerable, such as lower-income Americans, children and those living with a lung disease like asthma-in jeopardy." ResearchAmerica!: "heavy handed" "The president's proposed FY18 budget is an imbalanced, heavy-handed approach to bolstering national defense at the expense of other American priorities, including the research and innovation crucial to national security," said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America in Arlington, Virgnia. "Instead of weakening our nation with this approach, we urge the 115th Congress to negotiate a bipartisan budget deal that will ensure that both defense and non-defense priorities are sufficiently funded." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00010 "Steep funding cuts for the federal health agencies are counterproductive at a time when innovative research is moving us closer to identifying solutions for rare diseases, new prevention strategies to protect Americans from deadly and costly conditions, advances in gene therapy, new technologies for understanding the brain, and treatments that harness the ability of our immune system to fight cancer." UCS: "wrecking ball" "President Trump's proposed budget takes a wrecking ball to agencies that protect our health, safety and environment," said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in Cambridge, Massachussetts, in a statement. "His budget would gut the EPA, for example, taking our environmental cops off the beat and allowing those who would seek to pollute to get away with it. I also know from my experience heading a state environmental agency that states have neither the funds nor the staff to pick up the slack when federal enforcement is decimated." "His budget would also stall out U.S. technological innovation and scientific research, and the country's capabilities to respond to extreme weather and national security threats. This is all while driving up the deficit to pay for massive military budget increases we don't need. The Department of Energy, for example, has an office that's breaking new ground on advanced energy technologies that could boost the U.S. economy significantly. But the president doesn't have the foresight to see the benefit of these types of programs." AIBS: "stifles innovation" "The Administration's budget request stifles innovation, future economic growth, and job creation," said Dr. Robert Gropp, co-executive director of The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) in Washington, D.C. "These deep cuts to scientific research and education programs will negatively impact our ability to improve public health and solve environmental problems for years to come." "For years, Congress has demonstrated bipartisan support for investing in science. I encourage them to continue to invest in our nation's future by rejecting the President's budget requests for scientific research and education programs. We should be investing in research and science education, which are the keys to opportunity," Gropp added. Biochemists: science investments would be lowest in 40 years The budget, "if enacted, would significantly damage the nation's role as the global leader of research and innovation, and would roll back years of bipartisan support from Congress," said Benjamin Corb, public affairs director for the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in Rockville, Maryland, in a statement. "The president's proposal brings NIH funding to a 17-year low, erasing not only the recent history of increases provided by Congress but also the budget growth of the late 1990s and early 2000s, at which time Congress doubled the NIH's budget. The proposed budget for NSF will reverse the basic research agency's growth to fiscal SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000026-00011 year 2007 levels. Overall, the president's budget would bring total federal investments in scientific research spending to a 40-year low." "Further, the president's budget, which cuts nondefense discretionary spending while significantly increasing defense spending eliminates the parity between defense and nondefense spending that has been a hallmark of America's recent fiscal policy." Posted in: • • DOI: 10.1126/science.aall224 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000026-00012 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 7/10/2017 11:19:49 PM Erdogan says U.S. stance stalls Turkish ratification of Paris climate deal I Reuters HIT Willie, the rats are fleeing the ship. This is great news. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBNl 9Tl IR ?utm campaign=trueAnthem:+ Trending+Content&utm con1 Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000027-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Joseph Bast Mon 7/10/2017 4:02:34 PM Tim Ball and Tom Harris: Time to Debunk Misguided Science Sent: Subject: Excellent piece. Joe ht ://www.the ostcmail.com/2017/07/07/time-dcbunk-mis chmate-agrccment/ i et 1111 c1ence Ii ate uidcd-science-undcrl in - aris- e unk is n erlying ar1s gree ent Ill "THE BIGGEST DECEPTION IN HISTORY" by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, ©2017 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000028-00001 Announcement from the White House made on December 12, 2015 on Paris climate change agreement (Jul. 7, 2017) - On June 1, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change. He correctly identified it as a very bad deal for America. In July 1997, the U.S. Senate reached a similar conclusion about the U.N. climate change policy-making process in general. Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed the Byrd/Ha Jel resolution, which stated that America should not be a signatory to "any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] ... that would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States" and did not include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S. This is why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on the UNFCCC, to the Senate for ratification. It is also why former President Barack Obama approved the Paris Agreement, which also rests on the UNFCCC, as an "executive agreement" instead of submitting it for Senate approval as required by the Constitution for international treaties. He knew that the Senate would reject Paris as not in America's best interests. The Paris Agreement is not just bad for the U.S. According to Australian author and climate analyst llain Aitken, To achieve the goal agreed in Paris of a maximum 2°C increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels has been estimated to have a global cost of $17 trillion by 2040 (about 800 times more than was spent on all the Apollo missions to the moon) - and it would require carbon dioxide reductions about 100 times greater than those pledged in Paris." So, even if the man-made climate change problem were real, the actions specified by the Paris Agreement would solve nothing. And since the climate alarm is not based on sound science, no treaty based on the UNFCCC makes any sense. Kyoto, Paris, Copenhagen, Durban, Cancun, Warsaw, and all the other U.N. climate deals are merely political solutions to a non-existent problem without scientific justification. Yet the Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last month showed that a majority of Americans opposed the President's decision to pull out of Paris. This is largely because most people are unable to differentiate between climate change propaganda, as promoted by the U.N. and activists such as Al Gore, and climate change science conducted by independent researchers. Even pollsters who apparently support the climate scare recognize that public SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000028-00002 knowledge about climate change is poor. For example, in their biased 2010 study "Americans' Knowled e of Climate Chan E?,.,"investigators from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication created a multiple-choice test to examine, "what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming." They concluded, "In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F." The focus therefore must be on educating the public about the realities of climate science. This is especially important now since Trump is talking about the possibility of the U.S. agreeing to a new version of the Paris Agreement, but one "on better terms, fairer terms." There is no need for a deal at all since there never was a problem in the first place. On June 30, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that he is launching a program to critique climate change science. He will apparently bring in experts from both sides of the debate in order to determine the actual state of the science, something the EPA should have done long before saddling industry with expensive climate change regulations. Global warming campaigners will do everything in their power to block Pruitt's review since it will demonstrate that, rather than being settled in favor of climate alarm as eco-activists claim, the science is still immature. Those who created the global warming scare knew that 85% of the public would not understand the science and the remaining 15% would not question it. Pruitt must therefore use his evaluation to help the public understand what is, and what is not, known about climate change science. He must also promote the concept that "being a skeptic ... is quite alright," as Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last month. Indeed, science requires unfettered skepticism to advance. But the climate scare is more like an extreme religion than science at this point. And, when people start questioning such extreme belief systems, they rapidly lose the blind faith essential to the religion's survival. Handled effectively, the EPA science evaluation should lead many in the public to ask their representatives, "Why are you supporting the expenditure of billions of tax dollars on such an uncertain cause when funds are desperately needed to address society's real, well understood issues?" Aside from ignorance, or cowardice in the face of political correctness, politicians will have no answer. The climate scare, the biggest deception in history, will then be over. Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based !International Climate Science Coalition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000028-00003 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 6/22/2017 6:55:51 PM These two short clips from "Yes, Prime Minister" say everything you need to know about global warming I hope you know I don't waste your time with frivolous articles, commentaries, or video clips. But these are amazing: http://joannenova.com.au/2017/06/if-only-yes-prime-minister-re-elected-had-done-theglobal-warm ing/ They are short (one about 3 minutes, one 9 minutes), simply astonishing, utterly accurate, and devastatingly honest about the politics of the issue. I don't know how anyone with a pulse can watch them and not laugh out loud at how ludicrous politicians, journalists, and some (not all) scientists appear to be when they pontificate on global warming. Seriously, these clips do a better job explaining the state of the science and why politicians parrot the most extreme predictions and lies of the alarmists and make impossible-to-keep promises, even (or especially) when they know better, than any article or book or Powerpoint I have ever seen. Many thanks to Joanne Nova for finding and posting them, and to Willie for bringing them to my attention. One problem, though: I fear if President Trump and Steve Bannon watch these clips, Trump will announce the creation of a Presidential Commission on Global Warming and put Bannon in charge of it. It would be the clever thing to do, though not the wise thing. Much better is President Trump's current tactic of simply not mentioning global warming, even when talking about the Paris Accord. It wasn't, after all, really about global warming, was it? Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000029-00001 To: Arthur Robinson[art@oism.org]; bill@censtrat.com[bill@censtrat.com]; Bob Buford [~~~:~~:~~{~i~~:~.i~~-~ii~Y] Chuck Lang [Chuck_ Lang@tri pp Iite.co_rriL.R. 9DJ.~Ltt. 9J~?.L~~~~~~~~-P;;;~·~·;·,·P;i~~~y Harley Moodyf-·-·-·-·-·Ex:-s·-~-Pe-rionaTP-rivacy-·-·-·-·-·1 Herbert Walberg! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy tJiifr-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·Madden[Jeff. Madden@ironbridge.net]; Jere FabickUere.fabick@fabickcat.com]; Jim Johnston (External~ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy l; Poppeck, Whitney[WPoppeck@williamblair.com]; Singer, Brian[BSinger@williamblair.com] From: Joseph Bast Sent: Mon 6/5/2017 5:57:06 PM Subject: Heartland gets press attention regarding exit from the Paris Accord Directors and a few friends, Last week was quite a thrill, and the ride hasn't ended yet. All week, tension rose as the President Trump reportedly pondered whether to keep a campaign promise to remove the U.S. from the Paris Global Warming Treaty. Heartland produced two or three news releases and op-eds every day along with an aggressive back-door communication effort urging the President to exit the Paris agreement ... or even better, to exit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the underlying agreement that authorizes much of the U.S. involvement in international climate change efforts. On Thursday morning, I got an invitation to be in the Rose Garden at 3:00 p.m. ET to be part of the audience when President Trump announced his decision. My assistant Wanda speedily made my travel arrangements and within the hour had me in a car heading to the airport. After delays and switching flights (I="'---"-'='--'-'-.;._.::.==-"''-'-'---'"-='-"="--'--'=="'-/ I arrived in Washington DC at 2:00 and made it to the Rose Garden at 2:30, just in time to wait in line for 30 minutes and then wait in the Rose Garden until the President appeared. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00001 The Rose Garden is very pretty, the media are obnoxious, many of our friends from Heritage Foundation, Cato, and CEI were there. (The photo is of me talking with Steve Bannon afterwards ... my back, my good side, is to the camera.) Most of us were experiencing our first trip to the Rose Garden, and there seemed to be a conspicuous absence of CEOs, lobbyists, and trade association types. I wondered when the last time so many "forgotten men and women" were invited to this special place. Even my heart, hardened as it is by years of disappointment with politicians, warmed up a bit for the occasion. Yes, it was an honor to be there. The President's speech was terrific - he hit the ball out of the park by documenting the enormous cost and tiny benefits of staying in the agreement - and his decision to leave the Paris Accord "as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country" - was a triumph of sound science and economics and a victory for the American people. As EPA admin. Scott Pruitt said afterwards, "America finally has a leader who answers only to the people - not to the special interests who have had their way for far too long." I'm happy to say I led the applause on several occasions, and even hooted and whistled a few times. It is often said that victory has many parents while defeat dies an orphan. Many people can rightly claim to have played a role in bringing about this victory. The Heartland Institute - its donors, staff, directors, senior fellows, and policy advisors - poured millions of dollars and thousands of hours into making the case that global warming is not a crisis, more probably than any other think tank. We deserve some recognition, though the liberal media won't give us that. (The New York Times, for example, ran a lengthy piece titled "How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science" without once mentioning us. Ha!) But that's fine. All the better that they be kept in the dark about how we won that battle, so they will be equally unprepared to fight us in the next battle. Below are long lists of media coverage of and radio interviews of Heartland spokespersons regarding the Paris exit. As usual, these lists will grow over time as "hits" we missed are brought to our attention. You should feel free to stop reading here ... I include the lists because electrons are free ... but it's an impressive achievement, testimony to the effectiveness of Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, and our team of thinkers, writers, and speakers. Best regards, please do what you can to support the president on this important matter, and thank you for your support. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00002 Joseph L. Bast President The Heartland Institute 312/377-4000 The Heartland Institute Press Coverage of Trump Decision to Exit Paris Accord PRINT On May 8, the Washington Examiner (DC; circ. 33,000) published a news story that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Dozens of Groups Press Trump to Exit Paris Climate Deal." The author wrote, "The Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Action for America and the Heritage Foundation were some of the other groups that signed onto the letter." On May 9, the New York Times (circ. 626,257) published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Trump Administration Delays Decision on Leaving Climate Pact." The author wrote, "On Monday, a coalition of about 40 conservative advocacy groups, some of which directly advised the Trump campaign and transition, signed a letter to Mr. Trump supporting Mr. Pruitt's view. Many of the signers have a history of denying the established science of climate change and lobbying against climate change policy, such as the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Heritage Foundation." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00003 On May 10, Mother Jones (circ. 205,182) published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "What the Hell Is Going on With Trump's Delay on the All-Important Paris Decision?" The author wrote, "The few that are include 44 fossil fuel advocacy groups, as well as the far-right think tanks that promote climate change denial: the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. A 'leave' decision would show that Bannon and Pruitt have considerable sway over Trump's decision-making." On May 15, Lethbridge Herald (Lethbridge, Alberta; circ. 16,901) and the Moultrie News (Charleston, South Carolina; circ. 28,225) published an op-ed by Policy Advisor Tom Harris titled "Withdrawing From Paris Agreement Not Enough." He wrote, "To keep his campaign promise to "stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to UN global warming programs," Trump could work to get out of, or disregard, each of the UNFCCC agreements one by one. But this would result in years of conflict for the new administration. It is far better to be done with the hugely expensive and unscientific UNFCCC climate fiasco once and for all." On May 17, the Detroit News (circ. 256,075) published an op-ed by Burnett titled "Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement." He wrote, "As a candidate for president, Donald Trump said he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement and called it a bad deal for America. In an April speech in Harrisburg, Penn., Trump reiterated this claim, saying the Paris climate agreement in its current form hurts America. Despite his continued opposition, however, it remains unclear whether a withdrawal is in the nation's future. It's time for this administration to keep its promise, by getting the U.S. out of this flawed, costly agreement." On June 1, USA Today (circ. 2,203,610) published a news story that quoted Senior Fellow Fred Palmer titled "Climate Agreement Withdrawal: 'Trump Just Stepped on the Gas' Toward Catastrophe." The author wrote, "Fred Palmer of the free-market think tank Heartland Institute, which has received funding from oil and gas companies, said Trump will set the U.S. down a path 'where our fossil fuel resources are unleashed to power our future and drive our prosperity.' The 'anti-fossil-fuel Paris Accord .... is a disastrous plan for working men and women and the country itself- and he pledged to discard it in the presidential campaign,' Palmer said." On June 1, Le Monde (France; circ. 331,837) published a news story that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Aux Etats-Unis, le Debat sur L'accord de Paris met en Evidence la Fracture sur le Climat." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00004 On June 1, the San Francisco Chronicle (circ. 167,602) published an op-ed by Research Fellow Isaac Orr titled "Trump's Exit from Climate Accord Puts America First, for a Change." He wrote, "President Trump was right when he said in his speech announcing the decision to leave the Paris climate agreement he represents the people of Pittsburgh, not Paris. It's refreshing to have a president who puts American interests first and refuses to partake in symbolic gestures that would hamper the economy in exchange for nothing more than trivial reductions in future global temperature." On June 2, Liberation (France, circ. 79,662) published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Trump, Isole Mais Pas si Seul." On June 2, the 24 Heures (Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland; circ. 68,464) published a news story that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Derriere le Retrait de L'accord sur le Climat, le Poids Des Lobbys" ONLINE On May 9, Triple Pundit published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Corporate Interests Clash Over Paris Climate Agreement." The author wrote, "Critics pointed out that several of these organizations, including the American Energy Alliance, receive much of their funding from known climate action legislation opponents including the Koch brothers. Another co-signer of the letter, the Heartland Institute, was recently exposed for sending materials to school teachers that questioned the veracity of climate change science." On May I 0, DeSmogBlog and Truthout published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Conservative Groups Pushing Trump To Exit Paris Climate Deal Have Taken Millions From Koch Brothers, Exxon." The author wrote, "The groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), The Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation, claim failing to withdraw from the treaty could put Trump's policy agenda of promoting fossil fuels at risk." On May 26, The Daily Signal published an op-ed that quoted Palmer titled "The Possible Reasons Big Corporations Are So Eager for Trump to Break His Promise on Paris Climate SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00005 Deal." The author wrote, "Generally, larger energy companies have an advantage under the climate deal, said Fred Palmer, senior fellow for energy and climate at the Heartland Institute. 'Follow the money,' Palmer told The Daily Signal. 'There are companies that want to game the system of using [carbon dioxide] as a currency to make money."' On May 29, The New American published an op-ed that quoted Palmer titled "Trump Pressured to Stay in Paris Climate Agreement." The author wrote, "Fred Palmer, senior fellow for energy and climate at the conservative Heartland Institute, said: 'Follow the money. These are companies that want to game the system of using [carbon dioxide] as a currency to make money.'" On May 30, Breitbart published a news story that mentioned Burnett titled "Left Unhinged." The author wrote, "H. Sterling Burnett, an environment and energy research fellow at the Heartland Institute, will discuss Trump's decision on the Paris Climate Agreement." On May 31, CGTN America published a news story that mentioned Palmer titled "The Heat: The Future of the Paris Climate Accord." The author wrote, "To discuss Trump's decision and what it could mean for global climate change: Nathan King, CGTN correspondent; Michael Dorsey, co-founder and vice president of strategy at U.S. Climate Plan; Tao Zhang, founder and managing director of the green innovation and investment firm, Dao Ventures; Frederick Palmer, senior fellow for climate and energy at The Heartland Institute." On June 1, Fox News published an op-ed by Burnett and Haskins titled "Trump's Paris Climate Decision Should be Celebrated by Democrats, Republicans and Independents." They wrote, "Despite the Paris agreement's immense costs, the treaty's proponents insist it is a necessary step forward in the alleged battle against human-caused climate change. But even the U.N. Environment Programme, a noted climate alarmist agency, admitted on its own website the treaty would deliver no meaningful environmental improvements." On June 1, The Daily Mail published a news story that quoted Director of Communications Jim Lakely titled '"You Can Take it to the Bank He's Going to Withdraw': Climate Insider Says Trump WILL Pull out of Paris Within Hours (but Others Aren't So Sure)." The author wrote, "A spokesman for the Heartland Institute, Jim Lakely, said the conservative organization's president was headed to Washington for the ceremony at the invitation of the White House. 'I don't think they'd invite him if the Ivanka/Jared side of the tug-of-war on this issue won the argument,' he concurred." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00006 On June 1, Breitbart and Newsline published a news story that quoted Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett titled "Heartland Institute's H. Sterling Burnett Details Three Ways to Leave Paris Climate Agreement." The author wrote, "H. Sterling Burnett, Heartland Institute's Environment and Energy research fellow, was talking with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam as news broke that the Trump administration appears ready to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. 'If it's accurate, I'm heartened,' said Burnett." On June 1, People's Pundit Daily published an op-ed that quoted Burnett titled "President Trump Will Reportedly Pull U.S. Out of Paris Climate Agreement." The author wrote, "In 2015, Dr. H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute says that Switzerland has joined Australia, Paraguay, and the United States in 'adjusting' their weather data in an effort to demonstrate a global warming impact." On June 1, The Daily Beast published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Paris Climate Deal's Demise Means Steve Bannon Wins-and the Planet Loses." The author wrote, "Shah's assurances to those present on the call-including representatives from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all conservative or climate-skeptical think tanks-indicated the degree to which Trump's decision appealed to more ideological segments of the right-wing political world." On June 1, Green Tech Media published an op-ed that quoted Palmer titled "World Leaders Shut Down Trump's Paris Climate Speech: 'There Is No Legal Basis for Anything"' The author wrote, '"God bless President Trump for this courageous step to make America great again and to advance the America First Energy Plan,' said Fred Palmer, senior fellow of energy policy at The Heartland Institute, an influential libertarian group that has denied the science of climate change." On June 1, Vax published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Don't just blame Trump for quitting the Paris deal-blame the Republican Party." The author wrote, "Forty conservative think tanks or activist groups, including the Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, and the longtime climate science-denying Heartland Institute, signed on to a similar letter calling on Trump to pull out." On June 1, Climate Central published an op-ed that quoted Research Fellow Bette Grande titled SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00007 "Trump's Base the Big Winner from Paris Withdrawal." The author wrote, "After it was reported that Trump was preparing to pull out of the pact, Bette Grande, a researcher at the Heartland Institute, which opposes efforts to protect the climate, said in a supportive statement that "globalism would take a big hit" from the move. 'Angela Merkel and what is left of the E.U. are not happy (itself a victory)."' On June 1, the National Resources Defense Council published an op-ed that mentioned the Heartland Institute titled "Companies Defend Paris Deal Because of Its Economic Benefits." The author wrote, "Perhaps not surprisingly, IECA is supported by the Koch Foundation and Nucor, which both fund climate denial through groups such as the Heartland Institute." On June 2, One News Now published an op-ed that quoted Burnett titled "Climate Accord: U.S. Exits - Will China Fill the Void?" The author wrote, '"Here's the truth of the matter,' responds H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., of The Heartland Institute. 'If you're worried about greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. has been the leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions - and it hasn't been due to regulations. It hasn't been due to anything other than the natural gas revolution: fracking and the natural gas revolution."' On June 2, E&E News published a news story that mentioned Bast titled "The U.S. is Out of the Paris Agreement. What Now?" The author wrote, "An audience of conservatives clapped and took pictures as Trump made his announcement. Some hooted. Among them were prominent members of think tanks whose careers are rooted in questioning the accuracy of climate scientists. They included Joe Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, and Chris Homer and Myron Ebell, both of the Competitive Enterprise Institute." The article included a picture of Bast alongside Steve Bannon. RADIO AND TV HITS HEARTLAND FOLKS ON RADIO/TV TALKING PARIS CLIMATE TREATY Date Program Expert 5/4/17 Rod Arquette Show (KNRS-AM/FM; Salt Lake City, Utah) Isaac Orr 5/9/17 Lars Larson Show (Nationally Syndicated) Tom Harris 5/11/17 Mornings with Ray Dunaway (WTIC-AM; Hartford, Fred Palmer Connecticut) 5/21/17 The Answer (660-AM; Dallas, Texas) H. Sterling Burnett 5/30/17 Drew Mariani Show (Nationally Syndicated) John N othdurft SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00008 5/31/17 5/31/17 5/31/17 5/31/17 5/31/17 5/31/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/1/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/2/17 6/3/17 6/5/17 6/5/17 6/5/17 6/5/17 6/5/17 6/6/17 6/6/17 6/7/17 China Global Television Network Breitbart Daily News (Sirius/XM satellite, national radio) Rocky D Show (Nationally Syndicated) Rob Port (WDA Y-AM; Fargo, North Dakota) The Andy Caldwell Show (KUHL-AM; Santa Maria, California) The Bill Meyer Show (KMED-AM; Medford, Oregon) Fox & Friends (Fox News Channel) One News Now (National Cable Network) Tim Constantine Show (WMEX-AM; Boston) Brian Mudd Show (WIOD-AM; Miami, Florida) Steve Gruber Show (WJIM-AM; Lansing, Michigan) Beth Schoenberg Show (Nationally Syndicated) Steve Gruber Show (WJIM-AM; Lansing, Michigan) Sean Hannity Show (Nationally Syndicated) WGN-TV (Chicago) WTTW-TV Chicago Tonight (Chicago) China Global Television Network 124 News (Israeli TV) CBS News Radio (KNX-AM, Los Angeles) Rod Arquette Show (KNRS-AM/FM; Salt Lake City) The Georgene Rice Show (KPDQ-AM; Portland, Oregon) KPCC-FM, NPR affiliate (Los Angeles) 590 WVLK-AM (Lexington, Kentucky) Mike Schikman Show (WSVA-AM; Harrisonburg, Virginia) Vince Coakley Show (WORD-FM; Simpsonville, South Carolina) Charlie James Show (WTMA-AM; Charleston, South Carolina) The Josh Tolley Show (Nationally syndicated) Steve Gruber Show (WJIM-AM; Lansing, Michigan) Don Kroah Show (WAVA-FM; Washington, Virginia) Scott Sands Show (WSPD-AM; Toledo, Ohio) WTMJ-AM (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) WBND-TV, ABC affiliate (South Bend, Indiana) Jeff Crank Show (KVOR-AM; Colorado Springs, Colorado) Morning Answer with Dan Proft & Amy Jacobson (WIND-AM; Chicago) Jimmy Lakey Show (KCOL-AM; Fort Collins, Colorado) Rick Roberts Show (WBAP-AM; Fort Worth, Texas) Freedom and Prosperity Radio (National) Eric Price Show (KSRM-AM; Kenai, Alaska) ZimmCast with Chuck Zimmerman (Agriculture podcast) Pastor Greg Host (Nationally Syndicated Radio Show) Maryland's Wake-Up Call with Sean Casey (WCBM-AM; Baltimore) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Fred Palmer H. Sterling Burnett Jim Lakely Bette Grande Tom Harris Tom Harris Steve Milloy H. Sterling Burnett Tom Harris Tim Benson Tom Harris Jim Lakely H. Sterling Burnett Steve Goreham Steve Goreham Steve Goreham Ed Hudgins Fred Palmer Joe Bast Isaac Orr H. Sterling Burnett Jim Enstrom H. Sterling Burnett Sam Kamick Joe Bast Jim Lakely Joe Bast Tom Harris Joseph Bast Tom Harris H. Sterling Burnett Joseph Bast Sam Kamick Joseph Bast Tom Harris John Coleman Fred Palmer Tom Harris Jay Lehr Tom Harris Steve Milloy ED_001389_00000030-00009 Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000030-00010 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 3:41 :25 PM NOAA's website on sea level rise needs a rinse and spin Tom Hayward, former Chief of Naval Operations and Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, has taken an interest in the climate change issue, and coauthored an excellent short report on "Climate Change, Energy Policy, and National Power" for The Heartland Institute in 2014. He writes, Below is a quote from the NOAA web site on sea level: Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average-the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about oneeighth of an inch per year. Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive st01TIL5LLrges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting ofland-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity. What avenues are available to compel NOAA to stop these inaccurate statements? Tom ' ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! i i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· This really is terrible. Some folks on the Bee line of this message know where to find data that contradict this, and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) addressed this issue in depth, with hundreds of references to peer-reviewed articles, in 2013: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000031-00001 h s://www.hcartland.or Oceans.pdf r tern latc-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-rr/Cha ter-6-H dros hcre- Can this be called to the attention of anyone at NOAA? Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000031-00002 Joseph Bast Fri 6/2/2017 8:46:55 PM From Heartland: GUEST AVAILABILITY: Meet the 'Climate Realists' Who Helped Trump Withdraw from Paris From: Sent: Subject: Friends, This news release is going out now to address fake claims that climate science supports staying in the Paris Accord. If you are on the list, be prepared to get a call from reporters or Jim Lakely. Joe From: Jim Lakely [mailto:jlakely@heartland.org] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 2:56 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: GUEST AVAILABILITY: Meet the 'Climate Realists' Who Helped Trump Withdraw from Paris GUEST AVAILABILITY: Meet the 'Climate Realists' Who Helped Trump Withdraw from Paris Joseph, President Trump yesterday made the bold and correct decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. He offered sound economic arguments for exiting the accord, but the scientific justifications for getting out are just as strong. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000032-00001 other organization. Below is a list of more than 200 scientists, economists, and policy experts who can make the scientific case for the United States exiting the Paris Climate Accord. To interview any of these experts, please contact Heartland Institute Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or call/text 312-731-9364. LIST OF TOP 'SKEPTICS' OF MAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING A Habibullo Abdussamatov Alexandre A11:uiar Svun Akasofu Georne Allen Helmut Alt David Archibald J. Scott Armstromz Robert Armstrong Jerrv Arnett Ron Arnold Dennis A verv B Tim Ball Robert Ballimr Josenh Bast Joe Bastardi Charles Batti 11: E. Calvin Beisner Larrv Bell Corv Bernardi Roller Bezdek Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen Christonher Booker Donald Boudreaux Alexandra (Sandv) Liddv Bourne Robert L. Bradlcv Jr. William Brigus Barrv Brill H. Sterling Burnett C Gabriel Calzada Francisco Canella Robert "Bob" Carter H Tom Harris Kenneth Haanala William Hanner Howard Havden Dennis Hedke Ro2:er Helmer 0 Victor Manuel Velasco Herrara James O'Brien Art Horn Kendra Okonski David Henderson fsaac Orr Donald Hertzmark Christonher Horner Horst Ludecke John Humnhrevs Tam Hunt Marv Hutzler I Craill fdso Andrei fllarionov James Inhofc Rov hmis Yuri fzrael SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 p Garth William Paltrid2:e Genrot Patzelt Tim Patterson Bennv Peiser fan Plimer Andreas Prokonh ED_001389_00000032-00002 Alan Carlin John Charles Paul Chesser Georne Christensen Joseoh Clark John Coleman Russell Cook Rov Cordato Piers Corbvn William Cotton Richard Courtnev Susan Crockford Walter Cunninuham J Avril Terri Jackson Jim Johnston Michael Junubaucr R Paul Reiter Arthur Robinson Helen Roe Dana Rohrabacher Ronald Rvchlak s D Joscoh D' Aleo Kevin Davaratna Donn Dears James Delinunole Scott Denning Harold Doiron David Douglass Paul Driessen Terrv Dunleavv Bcckv Norton Dunlon John Dale Dunn E Don Easterbrook Mvron Ebell Nicola Scatfetta David Schnarc Harrison Schmitt Joel Schwartz Tom Scualstad Russell Sci tz James Sensenbrenner Garv Sham K Sam Kazman Nir Shaviv Richard Keen Daniel Simmons Madhav Khandckar Randv Simmons William Kininmonth S. Fred Sinuer Hon. Vaclav Klaus Fred Smith Paul C. "Chio" Knaooenberuer Lamar Smith David Kreutzer Lawrence Solomon Jeff Kueter Douglas Southuatc Geornc Kukla Willie Soon Rov Soencer Carlo Staunaro H. Leighton Steward John Stossel Aaron Stover John Sununu Brain Sussman Daniel Sutter Graeme Swindles L Hans Labohm Donna Laframbois T David Lcuatcs James Tavlor Jav Lehr Thomas Tanton Marlo Lewis SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000032-00003 James Enstrom Willis Eschenbach Christonher Essex Michael Economides David Evans F Peter Ferrara Robert Fenmson Sr. Walter Fett Terrence Flower Michelle Michot Foss Ei12:ilFriis-Christensen Michael Fox Chris de Freitas G rndur Goklanv Fred Goldbern Stan Goldenbenz Robert Gordon Steve Goreham Pamela Gorman Laurence Gould Vincent Grav William Grav Kenneth Green Brvan Levland Ben Lieberman Richard Lindzen Keith Lockitch Craig Loe hie Sebastian Liinirnr Anthony Luno M Howard Maccabee Ken Mallov Jennifer Marohasv Jim Martin Gerald Marsh Phelim McAleer Tom McClintock Ann McElhinnev Steohen Mcintvre Ross McKitrick Owen McShane Robert Mendelsohn Pat1ick Michaels Robert Michaels Steven J. Millov Ferenc Miskolczi Barun Mitra Christonher Monckton Patrick Moore Kilcz More Alan Moran Marc Morano Nils-Axel Marner Julian Morris Robert Murnhv fain Murrav Todd Mvers Geonze Tavlor Mitchell Tavlor John Theon Richard Trzunek David Tuerck V Brian Valentine Jan Veizer w N Marita Noon Mike Noel Joanne Nova SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Paul W afl"QOner A nthonv Watts Gerd-Rainer Weber Todd Wvnn Thomas Wvsmuller z Miklos Zagoni ED_001389_00000032-00004 The::..===---==="--""--'=is a 33-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, call 312/377-4000. If you would rather not receive future communications from The Heartland Institute, let us know by clicking The Heartland Institute, 3939 N. Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60004 United States SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000032-00005 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov] Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Wed 5/24/2017 2:06:23 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Thanks. The front of the envelope will be addressed to Sydney. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 8:23 AM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Best to send it to my or Sydney's attention at: Sydney Hupp Office of the Administrator 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 3000 WJCS SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00001 Mail Code 1101A Washington DC 20460 From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakel @hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 5:50 PM To: Hale, Michelle Cc: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle and Sydney, Quick question: We want to send a formal letter to Administrator Pruitt. How is the best way to send that letter? By FedEx? US Postal Service? And it is better to address it to one of you than Mr. Pruitt, himself? He obviously gets a ton of mail daily, and we wouldn't want this invitation letter to get lost. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00002 From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:02 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Hi, Jim, thank you for your note and invitation. I'm copying our Executive Scheduler, Sydney Hupp, to get this in the hopper. Appreciate you! Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:55 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle, I hope you are well, and I appreciate all the work you did to see if Administrator Pruitt could speak at The Heartland lnstitute's climate conference in March. I hope Mr. Pruitt could speak at another Heartland event, which is why I'm sending this email. Below my signature is an official invitation from Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast for Mr. Pruitt to be the keynote speaker at our annual benefit dinner, tentatively scheduled for September or October, depending on what's best for his schedule. We will be mailing this out in hard-copy form later this week, but I wanted to get the ball rolling immediately. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00003 We certainly hope Administrator Pruitt will say "yes," and let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst May 23, 2017 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator, 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00004 Thank you for everything you've been doing to advance President Trump's agenda. I was sorry your schedule didn't allow you to speak at our Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change, held March 23-24 in Washington DC. It was a huge success! I am writing to ask if you could come to Chicago this fall to speak at The Heartland Institute's 33m Anniversary Benefit Dinner. The event will be on a Wednesday or Thursday evening in September or October. We can be flexible for whatever date best suits you. The event likely will be held in the evening at The Cotillion, a fine banquet hall located in a town just down the road from our offices in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The venue is used frequently by elected officials and candidates during political seasons and can hold up to 800 people. Each year, our anniversary dinners attract nearly 500 people - and with you as our honored keynote speaker, we'd surely sell out the hall with nearly a thousand friends and pro-Trump supporters. I hope you or your scheduler can give me a call soon with a "yes," and any other questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00005 Sincerely, Joseph L. Bast President Past Speakers at The Heartland Institute's Anniversary Benefit Dinners Gary Becker, University of Chicago (Nobel Prize in Economics) Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute Robert Bleiberg, Barron's Peter Brimelow, Forbes columnist, author Tony Brown, civil rights leader and author Christopher Buckley, author SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00006 Linda Chavez, former secretary of labor Ward Connerly, civil rights activist Edward Crane, president, Cato Institute Phil Crane, congressman Donald Devine, Fund for American Studies Tom DiLorenzo, economist and author Bruce DuMont, WTTW host Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School M. Stanton Evans, author Floyd Flake, congressman Aaron Freeman, comedian and commentator Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools, Milwaukee John Fund, Wall Street Journal Stephen Goldsmith, mayor of Indianapolis Scott Hodge, president, Tax Foundation Caroline Hoxby, economist, Harvard University Rob Kolson, comedian John Lott, economist Tanya Metaksa, National Rifle Association Steven Moore, Wall Street Journal Joseph Morris, Lincoln Legal Foundation Tom Naughton, comedian Robert Novak, syndicated columnist SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00007 P.J. O'Rourke, writer Robert Poole, president, Reason Foundation Paul Craig Roberts, author Mark Skousen, economist and author Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute Tim Slagle, comedian John Stossel, ABC News and 20/20 Dave Thomas, chairman of Wendy's Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute J.C. Watts, congressman Scott Walker, Gov. of Wisconsin Brian Wesbury, economist Walter Williams, George Mason University About The Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research organization, founded in 1984, dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. Mission: Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Staff: A full-time staff of 39, including 30 working in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Joseph Bast is president SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00008 and CEO. Dr. Herbert Walberg is chairman of the board. Policy Advisors: 370 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors and 250 elected officials pay dues to serve on our Legislative Forum. Publications: Heartland sends four monthly policy newspapers - Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, and School Reform News - to every national and state elected officials in the United States and thousands of civic and business leaders. It also produces books, policy studies, booklets, podcasts, and videos. Communications: In 2016, we appeared in print and on television or radio 853 times with a combined print circulation of 67.7 million readers. We hosted 15 websites generating more than 1.8 million pages views. Policy Bot: Heartland hosts an online database and search engine called Policy Bot containing the complete text of (not just links to) more than 32,000 reports and commentaries from some 300 freemarket think tanks and advocacy groups. Events: Heartland hosted 68 events in 2016, attended by 10,616 people. We have hosted 12 International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, attended by more than 5,000 people. Government Relations: We contacted elected officials more than one million times in 2016, with 24,948 total direct personal contacts with elected officials, including 4,963 face-to-face meetings, 5,374 phone calls, 13,970 personal email contacts, and 641 contacts via personal mail. Public positions: We focus on issues in education, environmental protection, health care, budgets and taxes, and constitutional reform. Funding: Our 2016 income came from the following sources: foundations 67%; individuals 19%; business 11%; other 3%. Heartland is funded entirely by the tax-deductible contributions of its supporters and receives no funds from any government at any level. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00009 Contact information: 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60004, phone 312/377-4000, email For more information: The "About" page on our website at-'--'----'-'----'--'---'===== contains endorsements of our work, a history, and video prepared for our 25th anniversary in 2009. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000033-00010 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov] Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 5/23/2017 6:29:16 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Thanks, Michelle and Sydney. Hope to hear back in the affirmative soon! Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:02 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Hi, Jim, thank you for your note and invitation. I'm copying our Executive Scheduler, Sydney Hupp, to get this in the hopper. Appreciate you! Michelle SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00001 From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcly@hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:55 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle, I hope you are well, and I appreciate all the work you did to see if Administrator Pruitt could speak at The Heartland lnstitute's climate conference in March. I hope Mr. Pruitt could speak at another Heartland event, which is why I'm sending this email. Below my signature is an official invitation from Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast for Mr. Pruitt to be the keynote speaker at our annual benefit dinner, tentatively scheduled for September or October, depending on what's best for his schedule. We will be mailing this out in hard-copy form later this week, but I wanted to get the ball rolling immediately. We certainly hope Administrator Pruitt will say "yes," and let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00002 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst May 23, 2017 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator, 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: Thank you for everything you've been doing to advance President Trump's agenda. I was sorry your schedule didn't allow you to speak at our Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change, held March 23-24 in Washington DC. It was a huge success! I am writing to ask if you could come to Chicago this fall to speak at The Heartland Institute's 33m Anniversary Benefit Dinner. The event will be on a Wednesday or Thursday evening in September or October. We can be flexible for whatever date best suits you. The event likely will be held in the evening at The Cotillion, a fine banquet hall located in a town just down the road from our offices in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The venue is used frequently by elected officials and candidates during political seasons and can hold up to 800 people. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00003 Each year, our anniversary dinners attract nearly 500 people - and with you as our honored keynote speaker, we'd surely sell out the hall with nearly a thousand friends and pro-Trump supporters. I hope you or your scheduler can give me a call soon with a "yes," and any other questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it. Sincerely, Joseph L. Bast President SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00004 Past Speakers at The Heartland Institute's Anniversary Benefit Dinners Gary Becker, University of Chicago (Nobel Prize in Economics) Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute Robert Bleiberg, Barron's Peter Brimelow, Forbes columnist, author Tony Brown, civil rights leader and author Christopher Buckley, author Linda Chavez, former secretary of labor Ward Connerly, civil rights activist Edward Crane, president, Cato Institute Phil Crane, congressman Donald Devine, Fund for American Studies Tom DiLorenzo, economist and author Bruce DuMont, WTTW host Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School M. Stanton Evans, author Floyd Flake, congressman Aaron Freeman, comedian and commentator Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools, Milwaukee SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00005 John Fund, Wall Street Journal Stephen Goldsmith, mayor of Indianapolis Scott Hodge, president, Tax Foundation Caroline Hoxby, economist, Harvard University Rob Kolson, comedian John Lott, economist Tanya Metaksa, National Rifle Association Steven Moore, Wall Street Journal Joseph Morris, Lincoln Legal Foundation Tom Naughton, comedian Robert Novak, syndicated columnist P.J. O'Rourke, writer Robert Poole, president, Reason Foundation Paul Craig Roberts, author Mark Skousen, economist and author Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute Tim Slagle, comedian John Stossel, ABC News and 20/20 Dave Thomas, chairman of Wendy's Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute J.C. Watts, congressman Scott Walker, Gov. of Wisconsin Brian Wesbury, economist SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00006 Walter Williams, George Mason University About The Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research organization, founded in 1984, dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. Mission: Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Staff: A full-time staff of 39, including 30 working in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Joseph Bast is president and CEO. Dr. Herbert Walberg is chairman of the board. Policy Advisors: 370 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors and 250 elected officials pay dues to serve on our Legislative Forum. Publications: Heartland sends four monthly policy newspapers - Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, and School Reform News - to every national and state elected officials in the United States and thousands of civic and business leaders. It also produces books, policy studies, booklets, podcasts, and videos. Communications: In 2016, we appeared in print and on television or radio 853 times with a combined print circulation of 67.7 million readers. We hosted 15 websites generating more than 1.8 million pages views. Policy Bot: Heartland hosts an online database and search engine called Policy Bot containing the complete text of (not just links to) more than 32,000 reports and commentaries from some 300 freemarket think tanks and advocacy groups. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00007 Events: Heartland hosted 68 events in 2016, attended by 10,616 people. We have hosted 12 International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, attended by more than 5,000 people. Government Relations: We contacted elected officials more than one million times in 2016, with 24,948 total direct personal contacts with elected officials, including 4,963 face-to-face meetings, 5,374 phone calls, 13,970 personal email contacts, and 641 contacts via personal mail. Public positions: We focus on issues in education, environmental protection, health care, budgets and taxes, and constitutional reform. Funding: Our 2016 income came from the following sources: foundations 67%; individuals 19%; business 11%; other 3%. Heartland is funded entirely by the tax-deductible contributions of its supporters and receives no funds from any government at any level. Contact information: 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60004, phone 312/377-4000, email For more information: The "About" page on our website at-'--'---'-'---'--'-===="--'-"" contains endorsements of our work, a history, and video prepared for our 25th anniversary in 2009. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000036-00008 To: From: Sent: Subject: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHOL_ Ex._6_-_Personal__ Privacy ___ j Joseph Bast Fri 6/30/2017 6:07:00 PM RE: Preview of Poland Visit, Upcoming G-20 Summit Poland is the country most likely to break ranks with the rest of Europe and exit the Paris accord. They came close to leaving it before, at COP-19 held in Warsaw in 2013, their science academy has expressed skepticism, but they were brow-beaten by Germany, Britain, and the US into staying in. Things are much different now, with Germany retreating from its own renewable energy commitments, Britain out of the EU, Trump withdrawing the US from the Paris Accord, and LNG arriving in Poland. It would be wonderful if Trump could discuss this with President Duda. Joe From: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHO [mailto:i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:57 PM L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·' To: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHO Subject: Preview of Poland Visit, Upcoming G-20 Summit Poland Visit and Upcoming G-20 Summit Topline: The President, in his second-foreign trip, will look to promote American prosperity, protect American interests, and to provide American leadership. President Trump will travel to Poland on Wednesday where he will: •======== Meet with President Duda and speak to 12 Central European, Baltic, and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000039-00001 Western Balkan leaders at the Three Seas Conference •======== The President's remarks will focus on infrastructure development and energy security, highlight the first LNG shipments to Poland •======== Give a major speech to the Polish people at Krasinski Square, the epicenter of the 1944 Warsaw uprising against Nazi occupation •======== Praise Polish courage and its emergence as a European power President Trump will then travel to Hamburg, Germany for the G20. There, the President has seven objectives: 1. Strengthen American alliances •======== America First doesn't mean America alone •======== While there will be no NATO meetings on the trip, the President will continue to reiterate both his commitment to the alliance and expectations that all countries will pay their fair share for our collective defense 2. Reassert who we are - to demonstrate what binds us together •======== We share Europe's commitment to liberty and rule of law 3. Forge a common understanding of our threats •======== We saw President Trump make great progress in Saudi Arabia on denying terrorists safe havens - we'll look to build on that 4. Develop a common approach to Russia •======== President Trump wants a more constructive relationship with Russia but he's made clear that we will do what is necessary to confront Russia's destabilizing behavior •======== There will be a bilateral meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin 5. Expand economic opportunity for Americans •======== Make clear to our allies America cannot tolerate unfair trade and economic practices that disadvantage our workers and industries •======== The U.S. will seek reciprocal trade relations that are win-win for all countries and their workers 6. Create robust, open and fair energy markets SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000039-00002 •======== The U.S. is committed to the energy security of our allies and partners, and the diversification of energy sources, supplies, and routes 7. Reaffirm America's commitment to the environment •======== The U.S. has a strong record of develop clean technologies and protecting the environment. We remain committed to working with world leaders and the private sector on sound environmental policy and on innovative technologies SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000039-00003 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov] Dickerson, Aaron[dickerson.aaron@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 2/28/2017 4:02:28 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, Thank you for your quick attention to our request, and we look forward to hearing back. Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:53 AM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Dickerson, Aaron Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Hello, Jim. Thank you for the invitation. We will review the calendar and see if it will be possible for Administrator Pruitt to speak at the conference. I hope to have an answer for you by early next week. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000044-00001 Michelle Hale Executive Assistant to the Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, WJCS, Suite 3000 Washington, D. C. 20460 (202) 564-1430 Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of all or any portion of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcly@hcartland.org] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:05 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, I got your name and contact information from Myron Ebell, a long-time friend of The Heartland Institute and EPA transition leader - a very great service to his country and sensible climate and energy policy in the coming years. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000044-00002 I am writing to ask if Administrator Pruitt would consider being a keynote speaker The Heartland lnstitute's 12lh International Conference on Climate Change, which is taking place March 23-24, 2017, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1000 H. Street NW, Washington DC. We would be honored if he could expand on his excellent remarks at CPAC in front of an audience of some 250 climate scientists, economists, energy policy experts, think tank leaders, and the general public. Myron, by the way, is among those speaking, and you can review the whole schedule here. I believe Mr. Pruitt is familiar with The Heartland Institute and our work on climate change from his time in public service in Oklahoma. Heartland is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan research and education organization. It is not affiliated with any other think tank, foundation, corporation, or political organization. It is "the world's most prominent think tank supporting skepticism of man-made climate change" (according to The Economist). We have published more books, policy studies, and commentaries on the topic than any other free-market think tank in the world (according to the scientific journal Global Environmental Change). We are ranked in the top ten free-market think tanks in the world (according to TheBestSchools.org). More information is available on our website at http://heartland.org/. The theme of the conference is simple: Climate change does not require that we reduce energy consumption or replace fossil fuels with alternative energies. I am confident that this is Mr. Pruitt's view on the subject. Leading experts will discuss the science and economics of issue, addressing such topics as the economic benefits of fossil fuels, pros and cons of alternative fuels, "social cost of carbon," cost of regulations, and the outline of a plan to "reset" U.S. climate policy. The conference will feature 40 speakers, including members of Congress, other officials in the Trump administration (invited but not yet confirmed), and the following distinguished climate experts (all confirmed): Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Susan Crockford, Ph.D. (University of Victoria, Canada), Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D. (The Heritage Foundation), Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. (Western Washington University (Emeritus)), Myron Ebell, (Competitive Enterprise Institute), James Enstrom, Ph.D. (University of California - Los Angeles), lndur Goklany, Ph.D. (Department of the Interior), Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. (University of Guelph), Robert Mendelsohn, Ph.D. (Yale University), Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. (Cato Institute), Steve Milloy, MHS, JD (Junkscience.com), S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (University of Virginia (Emeritus), Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Harvard-Smithsonian Center on Solar Physics), Daniel SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000044-00003 Sutter, Ph.D. (Troy University), Timothy Terrell, Ph.D. (Wofford College, SC), and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D. (American Enterprise Institute). We plan to limit attendance to 200 ticket buyers ($179 for general admission to the twoday event), speakers, and Congressional staff who attend for free. Several other freemarket think tanks, including The Heritage Foundation, have agreed to cosponsor this event. We ask that Mr. Pruitt consider speaking at any of the plenary sessions - breakfast, lunch, or dinner on Thursday, March 23, or breakfast or lunch on Friday, March 24. Can you please convey this request to the Mr. Pruitt, along with my sincere congratulations and best wishes? And please let me know if there is anything I can do to increase the odds of a favorable decision! Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000044-00004 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: J Lakely@heartland.org[J La kely@heartland.org] Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov] Hupp, Sydney Wed 3/15/2017 12:04:26 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Good morning Jim, Hope this email finds you well! Michelle let me know that you reached back out inquiring about other times for the Administrator to speak. He will actually be out of town those days and unable to make the other two times you offered. I am so sorry! We wish we could participate and hopefully we are able to in the future. I appreciate your willingness to be flexible with us though! Please don't hesitate to reach out to us again. Best, Sydney From: Hale, Michelle Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:06 PM To: Hupp, Sydney Subject: FW: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:55 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, Before I give up all hope ... is there another time he could deliver an address? How about these times? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000047-00001 Thursday, March 23: 7:10 pm - 7:40 pm? Friday, March 24: 8 am - 8:30 am? Just let me know so I can say I exhausted all possibilities. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:59 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Jim, I apologize for the delays in getting you an answer. Unfortunately, the Administrator will not be able to do the speech on March 23. I'm very sorry! Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcl hcartland.or 0 ] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000047-00002 Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:09 AM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, I understand the blizzard was a bit of a dud in DC. Halleluiah! I'm glad you guys were spared the worst of the predictions. Any word yet on Mr. Pruitt being able to speak at Heartland's climate conference the morning of March 23? Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle i.:...:....:.::=.:..:..==.:..:...=====c_:c, Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 4:03 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Have a great evening! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000047-00003 From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@hcartland.org] Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 5:01 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Thanks for the update, Michelle. My fingers are still crossed ... even if it does make it more difficult to type. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:52 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Hi, Jim, we are still in the midst of lining out the Administrator's schedule for the remainder of March. Hopefully, we will have an answer for you soon. Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcl hcartland.or 0 ] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000047-00004 Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:09 PM To: Hale, Michelle Cc: Dickerson, Aaron Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, Just following up, and I hope you will have good news soon. I hate to press, but we're putting the official program together and it needs to go to the printer in the next couple of days. We'd love to put Secretary Pruitt's name in for the opening breakfast plenary session - or any of the plenary sessions that will fit in his schedule. Right now, I'm holding the 8:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. slot open for him. If it helps push toward a "yes," the secretary will have the opportunity to meet Apollo 7 Astronaut Walter Cunningham, an old friend and Heartland supporter who will be accepting an award from one of our co-sponsors immediately after that open speaking slot. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:53 AM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Dickerson, Aaron Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 0000004 7-00005 Hello, Jim. Thank you for the invitation. We will review the calendar and see if it will be possible for Administrator Pruitt to speak at the conference. I hope to have an answer for you by early next week. Michelle Hale Executive Assistant to the Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, WJCS, Suite 3000 Washington, D. C. 20460 (202) 564-1430 Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of all or any portion of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@hcartland.org] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:05 PM To: Hale, Michelle SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000047-00006 Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, I got your name and contact information from Myron Ebell, a long-time friend of The Heartland Institute and EPA transition leader - a very great service to his country and sensible climate and energy policy in the coming years. I am writing to ask if Administrator Pruitt would consider being a keynote speaker The Heartland lnstitute's 12lh International Conference on Climate Change, which is taking place March 23-24, 2017, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1000 H. Street NW, Washington DC. We would be honored if he could expand on his excellent remarks at CPAC in front of an audience of some 250 climate scientists, economists, energy policy experts, think tank leaders, and the general public. Myron, by the way, is among those speaking, and you can review the whole schedule here. I believe Mr. Pruitt is familiar with The Heartland Institute and our work on climate change from his time in public service in Oklahoma. Heartland is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan research and education organization. It is not affiliated with any other think tank, foundation, corporation, or political organization. It is "the world's most prominent think tank supporting skepticism of man-made climate change" (according to The Economist). We have published more books, policy studies, and commentaries on the topic than any other free-market think tank in the world (according to the scientific journal Global Environmental Change). We are ranked in the top ten free-market think tanks in the world (according to TheBestSchools.org). More information is available on our website at http://heartland.org/. The theme of the conference is simple: Climate change does not require that we reduce energy consumption or replace fossil fuels with alternative energies. I am confident that this is Mr. Pruitt's view on the subject. Leading experts will discuss the science and economics of issue, addressing such topics as the economic benefits of fossil fuels, pros and cons of alternative fuels, "social cost of carbon," cost of regulations, and the outline of a plan to "reset" U.S. climate policy. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000047-00007 The conference will feature 40 speakers, including members of Congress, other officials in the Trump administration (invited but not yet confirmed), and the following distinguished climate experts (all confirmed): Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Susan Crockford, Ph.D. (University of Victoria, Canada), Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D. (The Heritage Foundation), Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. (Western Washington University (Emeritus)), Myron Ebell, (Competitive Enterprise Institute), James Enstrom, Ph.D. (University of California - Los Angeles), lndur Goklany, Ph.D. (Department of the Interior), Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. (University of Guelph), Robert Mendelsohn, Ph.D. (Yale University), Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. (Cato Institute), Steve Milloy, MHS, JD (Junkscience.com), S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (University of Virginia (Emeritus), Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Harvard-Smithsonian Center on Solar Physics), Daniel Sutter, Ph.D. (Troy University), Timothy Terrell, Ph.D. (Wofford College, SC), and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D. (American Enterprise Institute). We plan to limit attendance to 200 ticket buyers ($179 for general admission to the twoday event), speakers, and Congressional staff who attend for free. Several other freemarket think tanks, including The Heritage Foundation, have agreed to cosponsor this event. We ask that Mr. Pruitt consider speaking at any of the plenary sessions - breakfast, lunch, or dinner on Thursday, March 23, or breakfast or lunch on Friday, March 24. Can you please convey this request to the Mr. Pruitt, along with my sincere congratulations and best wishes? And please let me know if there is anything I can do to increase the odds of a favorable decision! Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000047-00008 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000047-00009 To: From: Sent: Subject: Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 3/14/2017 5:15:48 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Bummer, Michelle. Thanks so much for working to make it happen. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:59 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Jim, I apologize for the delays in getting you an answer. Unfortunately, the Administrator will not be able to do the speech on March 23. I'm very sorry! Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakel @hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:09 AM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000049-00001 I understand the blizzard was a bit of a dud in DC. Halleluiah! I'm glad you guys were spared the worst of the predictions. Any word yet on Mr. Pruitt being able to speak at Heartland's climate conference the morning of March 23? Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 4:03 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Have a great evening! From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@hcartland.org] Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 5:01 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000049-00002 Thanks for the update, Michelle. My fingers are still crossed ... even if it does make it more difficult to type. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:52 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Hi, Jim, we are still in the midst of lining out the Administrator's schedule for the remainder of March. Hopefully, we will have an answer for you soon. Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:09 PM To: Hale, Michelle Cc: Dickerson, Aaron Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000049-00003 Just following up, and I hope you will have good news soon. I hate to press, but we're putting the official program together and it needs to go to the printer in the next couple of days. We'd love to put Secretary Pruitt's name in for the opening breakfast plenary session - or any of the plenary sessions that will fit in his schedule. Right now, I'm holding the 8:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. slot open for him. If it helps push toward a "yes," the secretary will have the opportunity to meet Apollo 7 Astronaut Walter Cunningham, an old friend and Heartland supporter who will be accepting an award from one of our co-sponsors immediately after that open speaking slot. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle i.:...:....:.::=.:..:..==.:..:...=====c_:c, Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:53 AM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Dickerson, Aaron Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Hello, Jim. Thank you for the invitation. We will review the calendar and see if it will be possible for Administrator Pruitt to speak at the conference. I hope to have an answer for you by early next week. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000049-00004 Michelle Hale Executive Assistant to the Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, WJCS, Suite 3000 Washington, D. C. 20460 (202) 564-1430 Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of all or any portion of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcly@hcartland.org] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:05 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000049-00005 I got your name and contact information from Myron Ebell, a long-time friend of The Heartland Institute and EPA transition leader - a very great service to his country and sensible climate and energy policy in the coming years. I am writing to ask if Administrator Pruitt would consider being a keynote speaker The Heartland lnstitute's 12lh International Conference on Climate Change, which is taking place March 23-24, 2017, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1000 H. Street NW, Washington DC. We would be honored if he could expand on his excellent remarks at CPAC in front of an audience of some 250 climate scientists, economists, energy policy experts, think tank leaders, and the general public. Myron, by the way, is among those speaking, and you can review the whole schedule here. I believe Mr. Pruitt is familiar with The Heartland Institute and our work on climate change from his time in public service in Oklahoma. Heartland is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan research and education organization. It is not affiliated with any other think tank, foundation, corporation, or political organization. It is "the world's most prominent think tank supporting skepticism of man-made climate change" (according to The Economist). We have published more books, policy studies, and commentaries on the topic than any other free-market think tank in the world (according to the scientific journal Global Environmental Change). We are ranked in the top ten free-market think tanks in the world (according to TheBestSchools.org). More information is available on our website at http://heartland.org/. The theme of the conference is simple: Climate change does not require that we reduce energy consumption or replace fossil fuels with alternative energies. I am confident that this is Mr. Pruitt's view on the subject. Leading experts will discuss the science and economics of issue, addressing such topics as the economic benefits of fossil fuels, pros and cons of alternative fuels, "social cost of carbon," cost of regulations, and the outline of a plan to "reset" U.S. climate policy. The conference will feature 40 speakers, including members of Congress, other officials in the Trump administration (invited but not yet confirmed), and the following distinguished climate experts (all confirmed): Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Susan Crockford, Ph.D. (University of Victoria, Canada), Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D. (The Heritage Foundation), Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. (Western Washington University (Emeritus)), Myron Ebell, (Competitive Enterprise Institute), James Enstrom, Ph.D. (University of California - Los Angeles), lndur Goklany, Ph.D. (Department of the Interior), Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. (University of Guelph), Robert SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000049-00006 Mendelsohn, Ph.D. (Yale University), Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. (Cato Institute), Steve Milloy, MHS, JD (Junkscience.com), S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (University of Virginia (Emeritus), Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Harvard-Smithsonian Center on Solar Physics), Daniel Sutter, Ph.D. (Troy University), Timothy Terrell, Ph.D. (Wofford College, SC), and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D. (American Enterprise Institute). We plan to limit attendance to 200 ticket buyers ($179 for general admission to the twoday event), speakers, and Congressional staff who attend for free. Several other freemarket think tanks, including The Heritage Foundation, have agreed to cosponsor this event. We ask that Mr. Pruitt consider speaking at any of the plenary sessions - breakfast, lunch, or dinner on Thursday, March 23, or breakfast or lunch on Friday, March 24. Can you please convey this request to the Mr. Pruitt, along with my sincere congratulations and best wishes? And please let me know if there is anything I can do to increase the odds of a favorable decision! Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000049-00007 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov] Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 5/23/2017 9:49:40 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle and Sydney, Quick question: We want to send a formal letter to Administrator Pruitt. How is the best way to send that letter? By FedEx? US Postal Service? And it is better to address it to one of you than Mr. Pruitt, himself? He obviously gets a ton of mail daily, and we wouldn't want this invitation letter to get lost. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:02 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Hi, Jim, thank you for your note and invitation. I'm copying our Executive Scheduler, Sydney Hupp, to get this in the hopper. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000050-00001 Appreciate you! Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcly@hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:55 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle, I hope you are well, and I appreciate all the work you did to see if Administrator Pruitt could speak at The Heartland lnstitute's climate conference in March. I hope Mr. Pruitt could speak at another Heartland event, which is why I'm sending this email. Below my signature is an official invitation from Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast for Mr. Pruitt to be the keynote speaker at our annual benefit dinner, tentatively scheduled for September or October, depending on what's best for his schedule. We will be mailing this out in hard-copy form later this week, but I wanted to get the ball rolling immediately. We certainly hope Administrator Pruitt will say "yes," and let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, Jim Lakely SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000050-00002 Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst May 23, 2017 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator, 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: Thank you for everything you've been doing to advance President Trump's agenda. I was sorry your schedule didn't allow you to speak at our Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change, held March 23-24 in Washington DC. It was a huge success! I am writing to ask if you could come to Chicago this fall to speak at The Heartland Institute's 33m Anniversary Benefit Dinner. The event will be on a Wednesday or Thursday evening in September or October. We can be flexible for whatever date best suits you. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000050-00003 The event likely will be held in the evening at The Cotillion, a fine banquet hall located in a town just down the road from our offices in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The venue is used frequently by elected officials and candidates during political seasons and can hold up to 800 people. Each year, our anniversary dinners attract nearly 500 people - and with you as our honored keynote speaker, we'd surely sell out the hall with nearly a thousand friends and pro-Trump supporters. I hope you or your scheduler can give me a call soon with a "yes," and any other questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it. Sincerely, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000050-00004 Joseph L. Bast President Past Speakers at The Heartland Institute's Anniversary Benefit Dinners Gary Becker, University of Chicago (Nobel Prize in Economics) Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute Robert Bleiberg, Barron's Peter Brimelow, Forbes columnist, author Tony Brown, civil rights leader and author Christopher Buckley, author Linda Chavez, former secretary of labor Ward Connerly, civil rights activist Edward Crane, president, Cato Institute Phil Crane, congressman Donald Devine, Fund for American Studies Tom DiLorenzo, economist and author Bruce DuMont, WTTW host Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000050-00005 M. Stanton Evans, author Floyd Flake, congressman Aaron Freeman, comedian and commentator Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools, Milwaukee John Fund, Wall Street Journal Stephen Goldsmith, mayor of Indianapolis Scott Hodge, president, Tax Foundation Caroline Hoxby, economist, Harvard University Rob Kolson, comedian John Lott, economist Tanya Metaksa, National Rifle Association Steven Moore, Wall Street Journal Joseph Morris, Lincoln Legal Foundation Tom Naughton, comedian Robert Novak, syndicated columnist P.J. O'Rourke, writer Robert Poole, president, Reason Foundation Paul Craig Roberts, author Mark Skousen, economist and author Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute Tim Slagle, comedian John Stossel, ABC News and 20/20 Dave Thomas, chairman of Wendy's SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000050-00006 Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute J.C. Watts, congressman Scott Walker, Gov. of Wisconsin Brian Wesbury, economist Walter Williams, George Mason University About The Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research organization, founded in 1984, dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. Mission: Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Staff: A full-time staff of 39, including 30 working in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Joseph Bast is president and CEO. Dr. Herbert Walberg is chairman of the board. Policy Advisors: 370 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors and 250 elected officials pay dues to serve on our Legislative Forum. Publications: Heartland sends four monthly policy newspapers - Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, and School Reform News - to every national and state elected officials in the United States and thousands of civic and business leaders. It also produces books, policy studies, booklets, podcasts, and videos. Communications: In 2016, we appeared in print and on television or radio 853 times with a combined print circulation of 67.7 million readers. We hosted 15 websites generating more than 1.8 million pages SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000050-00007 views. Policy Bot: Heartland hosts an online database and search engine called Policy Bot containing the complete text of (not just links to) more than 32,000 reports and commentaries from some 300 freemarket think tanks and advocacy groups. Events: Heartland hosted 68 events in 2016, attended by 10,616 people. We have hosted 12 International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, attended by more than 5,000 people. Government Relations: We contacted elected officials more than one million times in 2016, with 24,948 total direct personal contacts with elected officials, including 4,963 face-to-face meetings, 5,374 phone calls, 13,970 personal email contacts, and 641 contacts via personal mail. Public positions: We focus on issues in education, environmental protection, health care, budgets and taxes, and constitutional reform. Funding: Our 2016 income came from the following sources: foundations 67%; individuals 19%; business 11%; other 3%. Heartland is funded entirely by the tax-deductible contributions of its supporters and receives no funds from any government at any level. Contact information: 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60004, phone 312/377-4000, email For more information: The "About" page on our website at-'--'---'-'---'--'-===="--'-"" contains endorsements of our work, a history, and video prepared for our 25th anniversary in 2009. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000050-00008 To: From: Sent: Subject: Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 5/23/2017 4:55:06 PM Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle, I hope you are well, and I appreciate all the work you did to see if Administrator Pruitt could speak at The Heartland lnstitute's climate conference in March. I hope Mr. Pruitt could speak at another Heartland event, which is why I'm sending this email. Below my signature is an official invitation from Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast for Mr. Pruitt to be the keynote speaker at our annual benefit dinner, tentatively scheduled for September or October, depending on what's best for his schedule. We will be mailing this out in hard-copy form later this week, but I wanted to get the ball rolling immediately. We certainly hope Administrator Pruitt will say "yes," and let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst May 23, 2017 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000053-00001 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator, 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: Thank you for everything you've been doing to advance President Trump's agenda. I was sorry your schedule didn't allow you to speak at our Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change, held March 23-24 in Washington DC. It was a huge success! I am writing to ask if you could come to Chicago this fall to speak at The Heartland Institute's 33m Anniversary Benefit Dinner. The event will be on a Wednesday or Thursday evening in September or October. We can be flexible for whatever date best suits you. The event likely will be held in the evening at The Cotillion, a fine banquet hall located in a town just down the road from our offices in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The venue is used frequently by elected officials and candidates during political seasons and can hold up to 800 people. Each year, our anniversary dinners attract nearly 500 people - and with you as our honored keynote speaker, we'd surely sell out the hall with nearly a thousand friends and pro-Trump supporters. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000053-00002 I hope you or your scheduler can give me a call soon with a "yes," and any other questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it. Sincerely, Joseph L. Bast President Past Speakers at The Heartland Institute's Anniversary Benefit Dinners SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000053-00003 Gary Becker, University of Chicago (Nobel Prize in Economics) Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute Robert Bleiberg, Barron's Peter Brimelow, Forbes columnist, author Tony Brown, civil rights leader and author Christopher Buckley, author Linda Chavez, former secretary of labor Ward Connerly, civil rights activist Edward Crane, president, Cato Institute Phil Crane, congressman Donald Devine, Fund for American Studies Tom DiLorenzo, economist and author Bruce DuMont, WTTW host Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School M. Stanton Evans, author Floyd Flake, congressman Aaron Freeman, comedian and commentator Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools, Milwaukee John Fund, Wall Street Journal Stephen Goldsmith, mayor of Indianapolis Scott Hodge, president, Tax Foundation SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000053-00004 Caroline Hoxby, economist, Harvard University Rob Kolson, comedian John Lott, economist Tanya Metaksa, National Rifle Association Steven Moore, Wall Street Journal Joseph Morris, Lincoln Legal Foundation Tom Naughton, comedian Robert Novak, syndicated columnist P.J. O'Rourke, writer Robert Poole, president, Reason Foundation Paul Craig Roberts, author Mark Skousen, economist and author Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute Tim Slagle, comedian John Stossel, ABC News and 20/20 Dave Thomas, chairman of Wendy's Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute J.C. Watts, congressman Scott Walker, Gov. of Wisconsin Brian Wesbury, economist Walter Williams, George Mason University About The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000053-00005 The Heartland Institute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research organization, founded in 1984, dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. Mission: Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Staff: A full-time staff of 39, including 30 working in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Joseph Bast is president and CEO. Dr. Herbert Walberg is chairman of the board. Policy Advisors: 370 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors and 250 elected officials pay dues to serve on our Legislative Forum. Publications: Heartland sends four monthly policy newspapers - Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, and School Reform News - to every national and state elected officials in the United States and thousands of civic and business leaders. It also produces books, policy studies, booklets, podcasts, and videos. Communications: In 2016, we appeared in print and on television or radio 853 times with a combined print circulation of 67.7 million readers. We hosted 15 websites generating more than 1.8 million pages views. Policy Bot: Heartland hosts an online database and search engine called Policy Bot containing the complete text of (not just links to) more than 32,000 reports and commentaries from some 300 freemarket think tanks and advocacy groups. Events: Heartland hosted 68 events in 2016, attended by 10,616 people. We have hosted 12 International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, attended by more than 5,000 people. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000053-00006 Government Relations: We contacted elected officials more than one million times in 2016, with 24,948 total direct personal contacts with elected officials, including 4,963 face-to-face meetings, 5,374 phone calls, 13,970 personal email contacts, and 641 contacts via personal mail. Public positions: We focus on issues in education, environmental protection, health care, budgets and taxes, and constitutional reform. Funding: Our 2016 income came from the following sources: foundations 67%; individuals 19%; business 11%; other 3%. Heartland is funded entirely by the tax-deductible contributions of its supporters and receives no funds from any government at any level. Contact information: 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60004, phone 312/377-4000, email think@heartland.org. For more information: The "About" page on our website at www.heartland.org contains endorsements of our work, a history, and video prepared for our 25th anniversary in 2009. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000053-00007 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Hale, Michelle Wed 5/24/2017 1:22:32 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Best to send it to my or Sydney's attention at: Sydney Hupp Office of the Administrator 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 3000 WJCS Mail Code 1101A Washington DC 20460 From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 5:50 PM To: Hale, Michelle Cc: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle and Sydney, Quick question: We want to send a formal letter to Administrator Pruitt. How is the best way to send that letter? By FedEx? US Postal Service? And it is better to address it to one of you than Mr. Pruitt, himself? He obviously gets a ton of mail daily, and we wouldn't want this invitation letter to get lost. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000056-00001 Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:02 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Hi, Jim, thank you for your note and invitation. I'm copying our Executive Scheduler, Sydney Hupp, to get this in the hopper. Appreciate you! Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:55 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000056-00002 Michelle, I hope you are well, and I appreciate all the work you did to see if Administrator Pruitt could speak at The Heartland lnstitute's climate conference in March. I hope Mr. Pruitt could speak at another Heartland event, which is why I'm sending this email. Below my signature is an official invitation from Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast for Mr. Pruitt to be the keynote speaker at our annual benefit dinner, tentatively scheduled for September or October, depending on what's best for his schedule. We will be mailing this out in hard-copy form later this week, but I wanted to get the ball rolling immediately. We certainly hope Administrator Pruitt will say "yes," and let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst May 23, 2017 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000056-00003 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator, 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: Thank you for everything you've been doing to advance President Trump's agenda. I was sorry your schedule didn't allow you to speak at our Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change, held March 23-24 in Washington DC. It was a huge success! I am writing to ask if you could come to Chicago this fall to speak at The Heartland Institute's 33m Anniversary Benefit Dinner. The event will be on a Wednesday or Thursday evening in September or October. We can be flexible for whatever date best suits you. The event likely will be held in the evening at The Cotillion, a fine banquet hall located in a town just down the road from our offices in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The venue is used frequently by elected officials and candidates during political seasons and can hold up to 800 people. Each year, our anniversary dinners attract nearly 500 people - and with you as our honored keynote speaker, we'd surely sell out the hall with nearly a thousand friends and pro-Trump supporters. I hope you or your scheduler can give me a call soon with a "yes," and any other questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000056-00004 Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it. Sincerely, Joseph L. Bast President Past Speakers at The Heartland Institute's Anniversary Benefit Dinners Gary Becker, University of Chicago (Nobel Prize in Economics) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000056-00005 Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute Robert Bleiberg, Barron's Peter Brimelow, Forbes columnist, author Tony Brown, civil rights leader and author Christopher Buckley, author Linda Chavez, former secretary of labor Ward Connerly, civil rights activist Edward Crane, president, Cato Institute Phil Crane, congressman Donald Devine, Fund for American Studies Tom DiLorenzo, economist and author Bruce DuMont, WTTW host Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School M. Stanton Evans, author Floyd Flake, congressman Aaron Freeman, comedian and commentator Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools, Milwaukee John Fund, Wall Street Journal Stephen Goldsmith, mayor of Indianapolis Scott Hodge, president, Tax Foundation Caroline Hoxby, economist, Harvard University Rob Kolson, comedian John Lott, economist SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000056-00006 Tanya Metaksa, National Rifle Association Steven Moore, Wall Street Journal Joseph Morris, Lincoln Legal Foundation Tom Naughton, comedian Robert Novak, syndicated columnist P.J. O'Rourke, writer Robert Poole, president, Reason Foundation Paul Craig Roberts, author Mark Skousen, economist and author Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute Tim Slagle, comedian John Stossel, ABC News and 20/20 Dave Thomas, chairman of Wendy's Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute J.C. Watts, congressman Scott Walker, Gov. of Wisconsin Brian Wesbury, economist Walter Williams, George Mason University About The Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research organization, founded in 1984, dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000056-00007 Mission: Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Staff: A full-time staff of 39, including 30 working in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Joseph Bast is president and CEO. Dr. Herbert Walberg is chairman of the board. Policy Advisors: 370 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors and 250 elected officials pay dues to serve on our Legislative Forum. Publications: Heartland sends four monthly policy newspapers - Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, and School Reform News - to every national and state elected officials in the United States and thousands of civic and business leaders. It also produces books, policy studies, booklets, podcasts, and videos. Communications: In 2016, we appeared in print and on television or radio 853 times with a combined print circulation of 67.7 million readers. We hosted 15 websites generating more than 1.8 million pages views. Policy Bot: Heartland hosts an online database and search engine called Policy Bot containing the complete text of (not just links to) more than 32,000 reports and commentaries from some 300 freemarket think tanks and advocacy groups. Events: Heartland hosted 68 events in 2016, attended by 10,616 people. We have hosted 12 International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, attended by more than 5,000 people. Government Relations: We contacted elected officials more than one million times in 2016, with 24,948 total direct personal contacts with elected officials, including 4,963 face-to-face meetings, 5,374 phone calls, 13,970 personal email contacts, and 641 contacts via personal mail. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000056-00008 Public positions: We focus on issues in education, environmental protection, health care, budgets and taxes, and constitutional reform. Funding: Our 2016 income came from the following sources: foundations 67%; individuals 19%; business 11%; other 3%. Heartland is funded entirely by the tax-deductible contributions of its supporters and receives no funds from any government at any level. Contact information: 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60004, phone 312/377-4000, email For more information: The "About" page on our website at-'--'--"-'---'-'-====~ contains endorsements of our work, a history, and video prepared for our 25th anniversary in 2009. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000056-00009 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Hale, Michelle Tue 5/23/2017 5:02:03 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Hi, Jim, thank you for your note and invitation. I'm copying our Executive Scheduler, Sydney Hupp, to get this in the hopper. Appreciate you! Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:55 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak in September or October at Heartland Institute Benefit Dinner Michelle, I hope you are well, and I appreciate all the work you did to see if Administrator Pruitt could speak at The Heartland lnstitute's climate conference in March. I hope Mr. Pruitt could speak at another Heartland event, which is why I'm sending this email. Below my signature is an official invitation from Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast for Mr. Pruitt to be the keynote speaker at our annual benefit dinner, tentatively scheduled for September or October, depending on what's best for his schedule. We will be mailing this out in hard-copy form later this week, but I wanted to get the ball rolling immediately. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000059-00001 We certainly hope Administrator Pruitt will say "yes," and let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst May 23, 2017 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator, 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: Thank you for everything you've been doing to advance President Trump's agenda. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000059-00002 I was sorry your schedule didn't allow you to speak at our Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change, held March 23-24 in Washington DC. It was a huge success! I am writing to ask if you could come to Chicago this fall to speak at The Heartland Institute's 33m Anniversary Benefit Dinner. The event will be on a Wednesday or Thursday evening in September or October. We can be flexible for whatever date best suits you. The event likely will be held in the evening at The Cotillion, a fine banquet hall located in a town just down the road from our offices in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The venue is used frequently by elected officials and candidates during political seasons and can hold up to 800 people. Each year, our anniversary dinners attract nearly 500 people - and with you as our honored keynote speaker, we'd surely sell out the hall with nearly a thousand friends and pro-Trump supporters. I hope you or your scheduler can give me a call soon with a "yes," and any other questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000059-00003 Sincerely, Joseph L. Bast President Past Speakers at The Heartland Institute's Anniversary Benefit Dinners Gary Becker, University of Chicago (Nobel Prize in Economics) Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute Robert Bleiberg, Barron's Peter Brimelow, Forbes columnist, author Tony Brown, civil rights leader and author Christopher Buckley, author Linda Chavez, former secretary of labor SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000059-00004 Ward Connerly, civil rights activist Edward Crane, president, Cato Institute Phil Crane, congressman Donald Devine, Fund for American Studies Tom DiLorenzo, economist and author Bruce DuMont, WTTW host Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School M. Stanton Evans, author Floyd Flake, congressman Aaron Freeman, comedian and commentator Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools, Milwaukee John Fund, Wall Street Journal Stephen Goldsmith, mayor of Indianapolis Scott Hodge, president, Tax Foundation Caroline Hoxby, economist, Harvard University Rob Kolson, comedian John Lott, economist Tanya Metaksa, National Rifle Association Steven Moore, Wall Street Journal Joseph Morris, Lincoln Legal Foundation Tom Naughton, comedian Robert Novak, syndicated columnist P.J. O'Rourke, writer SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000059-00005 Robert Poole, president, Reason Foundation Paul Craig Roberts, author Mark Skousen, economist and author Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute Tim Slagle, comedian John Stossel, ABC News and 20/20 Dave Thomas, chairman of Wendy's Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute J.C. Watts, congressman Scott Walker, Gov. of Wisconsin Brian Wesbury, economist Walter Williams, George Mason University About The Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research organization, founded in 1984, dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. Mission: Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Staff: A full-time staff of 39, including 30 working in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Joseph Bast is president and CEO. Dr. Herbert Walberg is chairman of the board. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000059-00006 Policy Advisors: 370 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors and 250 elected officials pay dues to serve on our Legislative Forum. Publications: Heartland sends four monthly policy newspapers - Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, and School Reform News - to every national and state elected officials in the United States and thousands of civic and business leaders. It also produces books, policy studies, booklets, podcasts, and videos. Communications: In 2016, we appeared in print and on television or radio 853 times with a combined print circulation of 67.7 million readers. We hosted 15 websites generating more than 1.8 million pages views. Policy Bot: Heartland hosts an online database and search engine called Policy Bot containing the complete text of (not just links to) more than 32,000 reports and commentaries from some 300 freemarket think tanks and advocacy groups. Events: Heartland hosted 68 events in 2016, attended by 10,616 people. We have hosted 12 International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, attended by more than 5,000 people. Government Relations: We contacted elected officials more than one million times in 2016, with 24,948 total direct personal contacts with elected officials, including 4,963 face-to-face meetings, 5,374 phone calls, 13,970 personal email contacts, and 641 contacts via personal mail. Public positions: We focus on issues in education, environmental protection, health care, budgets and taxes, and constitutional reform. Funding: Our 2016 income came from the following sources: foundations 67%; individuals 19%; business 11%; other 3%. Heartland is funded entirely by the tax-deductible contributions of its supporters and receives no funds from any government at any level. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000059-00007 Contact information: 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60004, phone 312/377-4000, email For more information: The "About" page on our website at-'--'----'-'----'--'--'===== contains endorsements of our work, a history, and video prepared for our 25th anniversary in 2009. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000059-00008 To: From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Hale, Michelle Thur 5/18/2017 2:18:40 PM RE: H. Sterling Burnett in the Detroit News: Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement Thank you. From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:34 AM Subject: H. Sterling Burnett in the Detroit News: Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement FYI. h ://www.detroitncws.com/sto lo inion/20 l 7/05/18/ aris-climatc/101815198/ Billy Aouste Media Specialist The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Detroit News 5/18/17 Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement By: H. Sterling Burnett, the Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000062-00001 As a candidate for president, Donald Trump said he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement and called it a bad deal for America. In an April speech in Harrisburg, Penn., Trump reiterated this claim, saying the Paris climate agreement in its current form hurts America. Despite his continued opposition, however, it remains unclear whether a withdrawal is in the nation's future. It's time for this administration to keep its promise, by getting the U.S. out of this flawed, costly agreement. Some in Trump's team have reportedly said if the United States' commitments are restructured there might be a path to stay in the Paris climate agreement. While there may be a better deal to be had - after all, the Obama administration could hardly have negotiated a worse deal for Americans - there is no deal that would be good for the country. Even Trump can't put lipstick on this very ugly pig. While our economic competitors, such as China and India, do not have to limit their fossil-fuel use under the agreement, the U.S. is required to make steep cuts, which are estimated to cost our economy trillions of dollars over the life of the agreement without providing any appreciable environmental benefits. Additionally, a deal isn't possible without the U.S. paying into the political slush fund called the Green Climate Fund, which Trump promised to halt payments to. What is gained by staying in? Nothing. The question is not whether Trump should keep his word and withdraw from the Paris agreement; it's simply a matter of choosing the best way to do so. There are three options. The first way to cancel America's participation in the Paris climate agreement - and the one that most directly satisfies Trump's campaign commitment- is simply to withdraw the United States' signature entirely. Under the Paris agreement, any country can withdraw from the agreement by giving written notice of a decision to do so to the U.N. secretary general. Unfortunately, under the terms of the agreement, Trump can't give such notice until the agreement has been in place for three years, which means the earliest withdrawal date is Oct. 5, 2019. Making matters worse, the withdrawal does not become effective until one year after the written SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000062-00002 notice is delivered. This means even if Trump determines to withdraw from the Paris agreement today, the country will remain stuck with its terms for a minimum of almost four years, and while America remains a party to the agreement, it is obligated to keep its commitments. Because the four-year withdrawal period will not run out until after Trump's first term is over, should he decide not to run for president again or should he nm for re-election and lose, the next president could simply recommit the United States to the agreement with a simple signature. The second way to scotch America's commitments under the Paris climate agreement would be for Trump to submit it to the Senate for formal approval as a treaty. This is what Obama should have done in the first place. To become a binding treaty, the Senate would have to approve the Paris climate agreement by a two-thirds vote. If the agreement loses the treaty vote - and it likely would in a full vote of the Senate - the deal is canceled. However, nothing requires the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote on the Paris climate agreement if Trump submits it to them. Using the Senate filibuster rules, Senate Democrats could block the treaty from ever coming up for a vote. Such a move is likely, since the vast majority of Democrats support the Paris agreement. Under this scenario, the treaty would remain pending, leaving a future Senate to decide its fate. The easiest way for Trump to end U.S. participation in Paris and all international climate agreements would be for him to remove the country's signature from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. Article 25 of the UNFCCC allows any state party to the convention to withdraw, without further obligation, upon giving one year's notice. Withdrawing from UNFCCC would cancel the United States' obligations to all other United Nations-brokered climate agreements made subsequent to UNFCCC, because they are all built on it. This would be the best and easiest way to get out of the Paris climate agreement, and it would help to prevent future burdensome climate agreements. Mr. President, whichever path you choose, please keep your promise and withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, placing it firmly in the dustbin of history -where it belongs. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is a research fellow on energy and the environment at the Heartland SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000062-00003 Institute. SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 To: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Hale, Michelle Thur 3/9/2017 10:02:34 PM RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Have a great evening! From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org] Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 5:01 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Thanks for the update, Michelle. My fingers are still crossed ... even if it does make it more difficult to type. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle ====.:..==:...:..======-:c, Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:52 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Hi, Jim, we are still in the midst of lining out the Administrator's schedule for the remainder of March. Hopefully, we will have an answer for you soon. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000063-00001 Michelle From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:09 PM To: Hale, Michelle Cc: Dickerson, Aaron Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, Just following up, and I hope you will have good news soon. I hate to press, but we're putting the official program together and it needs to go to the printer in the next couple of days. We'd love to put Secretary Pruitt's name in for the opening breakfast plenary session - or any of the plenary sessions that will fit in his schedule. Right now, I'm holding the 8:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. slot open for him. If it helps push toward a "yes," the secretary will have the opportunity to meet Apollo 7 Astronaut Walter Cunningham, an old friend and Heartland supporter who will be accepting an award from one of our co-sponsors immediately after that open speaking slot. Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000063-00002 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Hale, Michelle L!..!..!!=::'...:..!..!="-'-'-'-'-"-'-'-"'-'-'-"===~J Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:53 AM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Dickerson, Aaron Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Hello, Jim. Thank you for the invitation. We will review the calendar and see if it will be possible for Administrator Pruitt to speak at the conference. I hope to have an answer for you by early next week. Michelle Hale Executive Assistant to the Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, WJCS, Suite 3000 Washington, D. C. 20460 (202) 564-1430 Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of all or any portion of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments from your system. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000063-00003 From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcly@hcartland.org] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:05 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Request to Scott Pruitt to speak on March 23 or 24 in Washington DC Michelle, I got your name and contact information from Myron Ebell, a long-time friend of The Heartland Institute and EPA transition leader - a very great service to his country and sensible climate and energy policy in the coming years. I am writing to ask if Administrator Pruitt would consider being a keynote speaker The Heartland lnstitute's 12lh International Conference on Climate Change, which is taking place March 23-24, 2017, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1000 H. Street NW, Washington DC. We would be honored if he could expand on his excellent remarks at CPAC in front of an audience of some 250 climate scientists, economists, energy policy experts, think tank leaders, and the general public. Myron, by the way, is among those speaking, and you can review the whole schedule here. I believe Mr. Pruitt is familiar with The Heartland Institute and our work on climate change from his time in public service in Oklahoma. Heartland is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan research and education organization. It is not affiliated with any other think tank, foundation, corporation, or political organization. It is "the world's most prominent think tank supporting skepticism of man-made climate change" (according to The Economist). We have published more books, policy studies, and commentaries on the topic than any other free-market think tank in the world (according to the scientific journal Global Environmental Change). We are ranked in the top ten free-market think tanks in the world (according to TheBestSchools.org). More information is available on our website at http://heartland.org/. The theme of the conference is simple: Climate change does not require that we reduce SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000063-00004 energy consumption or replace fossil fuels with alternative energies. I am confident that this is Mr. Pruitt's view on the subject. Leading experts will discuss the science and economics of issue, addressing such topics as the economic benefits of fossil fuels, pros and cons of alternative fuels, "social cost of carbon," cost of regulations, and the outline of a plan to "reset" U.S. climate policy. The conference will feature 40 speakers, including members of Congress, other officials in the Trump administration (invited but not yet confirmed), and the following distinguished climate experts (all confirmed): Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Susan Crockford, Ph.D. (University of Victoria, Canada), Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D. (The Heritage Foundation), Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. (Western Washington University (Emeritus)), Myron Ebell, (Competitive Enterprise Institute), James Enstrom, Ph.D. (University of California - Los Angeles), lndur Goklany, Ph.D. (Department of the Interior), Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. (University of Guelph), Robert Mendelsohn, Ph.D. (Yale University), Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. (Cato Institute), Steve Milloy, MHS, JD (Junkscience.com), S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (University of Virginia (Emeritus), Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Harvard-Smithsonian Center on Solar Physics), Daniel Sutter, Ph.D. (Troy University), Timothy Terrell, Ph.D. (Wofford College, SC), and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D. (American Enterprise Institute). We plan to limit attendance to 200 ticket buyers ($179 for general admission to the twoday event), speakers, and Congressional staff who attend for free. Several other freemarket think tanks, including The Heritage Foundation, have agreed to cosponsor this event. We ask that Mr. Pruitt consider speaking at any of the plenary sessions - breakfast, lunch, or dinner on Thursday, March 23, or breakfast or lunch on Friday, March 24. Can you please convey this request to the Mr. Pruitt, along with my sincere congratulations and best wishes? And please let me know if there is anything I can do to increase the odds of a favorable decision! Regards, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000063-00005 Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000063-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 8/21/2017 11 :42:57 PM Wow Again: Trump disbands National Climate Assessment panel This is even better than hoped for. Joe https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ energy-environment/wp/2017 /08/20/the-trumpadministration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climatechange/?utm _term=.5c0daalfba4 l The Trump administration just disbanded a federal advisory committee on climate change By Juliet Eilperin August 20 The Trump administration has decided to disband the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment, a group aimed at helping policymakers and private-sector officials incorporate the government's climate analysis into long-term planning. The charter for the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment - which includes academics as well as local officials and corporate representatives expires Sunday. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's acting administrator, Ben Friedman, informed the committee's chair that the agency would not renew the panel. The National Climate Assessment is supposed to be issued every four years but has come out only three times since passage of the 1990 law calling for such analysis. The next one, due for release in 2018, already has become a contentious issue for the Trump administration. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000127-00001 The committee was established to help translate findings from the National Climate Assessment into concrete guidance for both public and private-sector officials. Its members have been writing a report to inform federal officials on the data sets and approaches that would best be included, and chair Richard Moss said in an interview Saturday that ending the group's work was shortsighted. "It doesn't seem to be the best course of action," said Moss, an adjunct professor in the University of Maryland's Department of Geographical Sciences, and he warned of consequences for the decisions that state and local authorities must make on a range of issues from building road projects to maintaining adequate hydropower supplies. "We're going to be running huge risks here and possibly end up hurting the next generation's economic prospects." But NOAA communications director Julie Roberts said in an email Saturday that "this action does not impact the completion of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which remains a key priority." While many state and local officials have pressed the federal government for more concrete guidance on how to factor climate change into future infrastructure, President Trump has moved in the opposite direction. Last week, the president signed an executive order on infrastructure that included language overturning a federal requirement that projects built in coastal floodplains and receiving federal aid take projected sea-level rise into account. Some groups, such as the National Association of Home Builders, hailed the reversal of that standard from the Obama administration on the grounds that stricter flood requirements would raise the cost of development and "could make many projects infeasible." Seattle Mayor Ed Murray (D) said in an interview Saturday that the move to dissolve the climate advisory committee represents "an example of the president not leading, and the president stepping away from reality." An official from Seattle Public Utilities has been serving on the panel; with its disbanding, Murray said it would now be "more difficult" for cities to participate in the climate assessment. On climate change, Trump "has left us all individually to figure it out." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000127 -00002 Richard Wright, the past chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Committee on Adaptation to a Changing Climate, has been working with the federal advisory panel to convey the importance of detailed climate projections in next year's assessment. The society establishes guidelines that form the basis of building codes across the country, and these are based on a historical record that may no longer be an accurate predictor of future weather extremes. "We need to work on updating our standards with good estimates on what future weather and climate extremes will be," Wright said Saturday. "I think it's going to be a serious handicap for us that the advisory committee is not functional." The committee was established in 2015, but its members were not appointed until last summer. They convened their first meeting in the fall. Moss said members of the group intend to keep working on their report, which is due out next spring, even though it now will lack the official imprimatur of the federal government. "It won't have the same weight as if we were issuing it as a federal advisory committee," he said. Other Trump Cabinet officials have either altered the makeup of outside advisory boards or suspended these panels in recent months, though they have not abolished the groups outright. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to replace dozens of members on one of the agency's key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is "reviewing the charter and charge" of more than 200 advisory boards for his department. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000127 -00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 6/6/2017 1 :27:34 PM Richard Toi: "The Private Benefit of Carbon and its Social Cost" HIT David Hagen and Marc Morano. I haven't had a chance to read this yet, but it appears to be an attempt to resolve the confusion between the "benefits of fossil fuels" and the "social cost of carbon." The former are clearly huge, as Gary Bezdek et al. repeatedly demonstrate, while the latter by definition is only that cost borne by "society," or those other than direct users, and net of social benefits. Joe Abstract: The private benefit of carbon is the value, at the margin, of the energy services provided by the use of fossil fuels. It is the weighted average of the price of energy times the carbon dioxide emission coefficient, with energy used as weights. The private benefits is here estimated, for the first time, at $411 /tC02. The private benefit is lowest for coal use in industry and highest for residential electricity; it is lowest in Kazakhstan and highest in Norway. The private benefit of carbon is much higher than the social cost of carbon. " ... The private benefit of carbon is large and, in most cases, much larger than the social cost of carbon. But while the social cost of carbon is tied to carbon dioxide emissions and their impact on the climate, the private benefit of carbon is not tied to fossil fuels. The private benefits of carbon are, really, the benefits of abundant and reliable energy - or rather, the benefits of the services provided by energy, such as warm homes, cooked food, travel and transport, information and communication, and so on. An increasing share of these benefits can be had without incurring carbon dioxide emissions, or by paying a falling premium to avoid such emissions." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000128-00001 https://www .sussex.ac. uk/webteam/gateway/file. php?name=wps-07-2017. pdf&site=24 http://bit.ly/2qXx2qN SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000128-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 9:47:31 PM RE: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Cato Institute, pmichaels@cato.org Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute, mebell@cei.org Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, kevin.Dayaratna@heritage.org Ben Zycher, Ph.D., AEI, Benjamin.Zycher@AEI.org Tom Pyle, IER, tpyle@energydc.org Steve Milloy, Junkscicnce.org, milloy@me.com Joe From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:41 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Re: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Send me their I emails. They each represent a unique group so they should each get an invite. Thank you. John Konkus Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Public Affairs Environmental Protection Agency Cell:i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i On Jun 5, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Joseph Bast wrote: Thanks! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000129-00001 One more question, can you or have you arranged for invitations to out to the following individuals? I could supply email addresses if you need them. I could invite them myself, but it would be nice if they were not "counted" against the number of others I end up bringing with me. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Cato Institute Myron Ebell, CEI Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation Ben Zycher, Ph.D., AEI Tom Pyle, IER Steve Milloy, Junkscicnce.org Joe From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:18 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: RE: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting I have confirmed that tomorrow's meeting is an internal meeting. The meeting on the 14th is the public meeting. Also, an organization is not limited to only one attendee. You should be able to bring others. From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@hcartland.org] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:00 PM To: Konkus, John SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000129-00002 Subject: FW: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting John, This invitation doesn't say anything about my being able to invite guests. Can you please confirm that, before I start to invite others, or do you recommend I direct my inquiry to Martha Otto or Francesca Grifo? Also, no mention of a meeting tomorrow, which I could call in for, and/or have some of Heartland's Washington DC staff attend in person. Joe From: Otto, Martha [mailto:Otto.Martha@epa.gov] On Behalf Of Scientific Integrity Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 3:42 PM Subject: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Greetings, It is my pleasure to invite you to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting. At this year's meeting, as the EPA Scientific Integrity Official, I will answer your questions, share current scientific integrity initiatives, and discuss future plans for scientific integrity at EPA. Please RSVP to scientific integri y@cpa.go__y as soon as possible. Let us know if you plan to attend in person, by phone, or by AdobeConnect. Details are as follows: EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting Wednesday, June 14th,2017 3:00-5:00 PM SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000129-00003 Ronald Reagan Building Mezzanine, Room 301 A-B RSVP Required: scientific integritv@epa.gov Audioconference No: 1-866-299-3188 code: 202-564-6811 *To access this meeting, attendees must check in with security using a valid governmentissued photo ID. All attendees should RSVP to facilitate their admittance to the building. I hope that you will join me to learn more about how we are ensuring a culture of scientific integrity at EPA. Sincerely, Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D. Scientific Integrity Official US EPA Office of the Science Advisor 202-564-1687 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000129-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 9:41:42 PM Response to "Trump misrepresented MIT climate research, officials say" Willie Soon sent around this link ... http://www.dail mail.co.uk/ncws/article-4564392/Trump-misunderstood-MTT-climatc-researchuniversi -officials-sa .html ... to an article citing MIT economists claiming that President Trump, in his Rose Garden speech last week, misrepresented their estimate of the impact of the Paris accord on global temperatures. But according to Kevin Dayaratna at Heritage, kevin.Dayaratna@hcritage.org, I've adapted the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change here at Heritage. if you assume an overly-sensitive climate (around 3 degrees C) and drop US CO2 emissions to zero, you will see a negligible impact on global temperatures. Pat and Chip have developed a nice calculator out of the model https://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-wecalculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculatoronline so you can see this, and I've verified their results using the model myself. Eliminating from the industrialized world will also have a negligible impact: 2oso: 0.104°c 2100: 0.278°C The model also provides insight on sea level rise, and again these changes are quite negligible. Now in terms of China and India, Pat had some interesting thoughts when the two ofus testified on the Hill earlier this year SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000130-00001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXxhswbkoMO&feature=youtu.be So the question is - What assumptions are these other people making about CO2 reductions that are made worldwide? My instinct is, almost surely, they are either too rosy or are HEAVILY over-estimating the climate sensitivity. Kevin And Ben Zycher at AEI, =--=======;=...c==;;,, agrees with Kevin, saying "Bjorn Lomborg's peer-reviewed paper on this is 0.17 degrees by 2100. I have run the NCAR model and I get pretty much the same answer even with a climate sensitivity assumption of 4.5 degrees." And this dust up reminded me of a previous one, in 2009, when MIT researchers estimated the cost of cap-and-trade would be $3,100 per household, but when Republicans began to cite it, claimed they really meant to say it was only $800. Subsequent research by John McCormack at The Weekly Standard revealed the real cost of cap-and-trade, using their methodology, was $3,900. See Maybe something is wrong with MIT, and not with President Trump? Could that be? Joe Joseph Bast President SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000130-00002 The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000130-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 7/6/2017 6:13:10 PM Part II of Response to MIT President: Paris Exit Scientifically Sound - Master Resource FYI. https ://www. masterresou rce. org/cl imate-science/mit-president-exit-paris-i i/ Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000131-00001 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 9:24:40 PM RE: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Thanks! One more question, can you or have you arranged for invitations to out to the following individuals? I could supply email addresses if you need them. I could invite them myself, but it would be nice if they were not "counted" against the number of others I end up bringing with me. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Cato Institute Myron Ebell, CEI Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation Ben Zycher, Ph.D., AEI Tom Pyle, IER Steve Milloy, Junkscience.org Joe From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:18 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: RE: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting I have confirmed that tomorrow's meeting is an internal meeting. The meeting on the 14th is the public meeting. Also, an organization is not limited to only one attendee. You should be able to bring others. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000132-00001 From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@hcartland.org] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:00 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: FW: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting John, This invitation doesn't say anything about my being able to invite guests. Can you please confirm that, before I start to invite others, or do you recommend I direct my inquiry to Martha Otto or Francesca Grifo? Also, no mention of a meeting tomorrow, which I could call in for, and/or have some of Heartland's Washington DC staff attend in person. Joe From: Otto, Martha [mailto:Otto.Martha@epa.gov] On Behalf Of Scientific Integrity Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 3:42 PM Subject: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Greetings, It is my pleasure to invite you to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting. At this year's meeting, as the EPA Scientific Integrity Official, I will answer your questions, share current scientific integrity initiatives, and discuss future plans for scientific integrity at EPA. Please RSVP to scientific inte ri e a. ov as soon as possible. Let us know if you plan to attend in person, by phone, or by AdobeConnect. Details are as follows: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000132-00002 EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting Wednesday, June 14t\ 2017 3:00-5:00 PM Ronald Reagan Building Mezzanine, Room 301 A-B RSVP Required: scientific integritv@epa.gov Audioconference No:i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy :code:iEx. 6 • Personal L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·" Privacy: L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·" *To access this meeting, attendees must check in with security using a valid government-issued photo ID. All attendees should RSVP to facilitate their admittance to the building. I hope that you will join me to learn more about how we are ensuring a culture of scientific integrity at EPA. Sincerely, Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D. Scientific Integrity Official US EPA Office of the Science Advisor SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000132-00003 202-564-1687 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000132-00004 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 8:59:38 PM FW: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting John, This invitation doesn't say anything about my being able to invite guests. Can you please confirm that, before I start to invite others, or do you recommend I direct my inquiry to Martha Otto or Francesca Grifo? Also, no mention of a meeting tomorrow, which I could call in for, and/or have some of Heartland's Washington DC staff attend in person. Joe From: Otto, Martha [mailto:Otto.Martha@epa.gov] On Behalf Of Scientific Integrity Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 3:42 PM Subject: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Greetings, It is my pleasure to invite you to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting. At this year's meeting, as the EPA Scientific Integrity Official, I will answer your questions, share current scientific integrity initiatives, and discuss future plans for scientific integrity at EPA. Please RSVP to "'--"'-'-"'--'-""--'---'--'-""--==''--'--'-"-'=-"--".I-===~ as soon as possible. Let us know if you plan to attend in person, by phone, or by AdobeConnect. Details are as follows: EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting Wednesday, June 14th,2017 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000133-00001 3:00-5:00 PM Ronald Reagan Building Mezzanine, Room 301 A-B RSVP Required: scientific integritv@epa.gov Audioconference No:i Ex. 6 • Personal I-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•• Privacy icode:! Ex. 6 -Personal Privacy i-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-• i I AdobeConnect Link: [____________________________________ Ex.__ 6_-_Perso_na I _Privacy________________________ i *To access this meeting, attendees must check in with security using a valid government-issued photo ID. All attendees should RSVP to facilitate their admittance to the building. I hope that you will join me to learn more about how we are ensuring a culture of scientific integrity at EPA. Sincerely, Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D. Scientific Integrity Official US EPA Office of the Science Advisor 202-564-1687 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000133-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 7/26/2017 1:27:12 PM David Schnare on why he left EPA, Red Team, etc. "The following article was first published in Inside EPA on July 25, 2017 and is reprinted here with permission of the author." Guest Perspective Schnare, Former Transition fficial, n His Departure, EPA Climate Science Review July 25, 2017 Editor's Note: David Schnare, the former EPA transition official who wrote this article, left the agency earlier this year over concerns about infighting among administration appointees and Administrator Scott Pruitt's alleged lack of engagement. In it, his first since departing the agency, he discusses his reasons for leaving and his views on EPA 's upcoming climate science review. The views expressed here are his. It is a high honor to be asked to serve on a presidential transition team -- an even higher one to be asked to go back into an agency into a major role. The Presidential Personnel Office, with the full support of Transition Team Leader and Senior White House Advisor, Don Benton, asked me to act as, and then become permanently appointed as the Assistant Deputy Administrator, a position Administrator Pruitt described as the Chief Operating Officer for the Agency. A few days before the White House officially made that assignment, I resigned. As a 34 year-veteran of EPA, a PhD environmental scientist and attorney who retired from the Agency in 2011, President Trump's team asked me to go into the agency in a leadership role implementing the EPA transition plan. Based on discussions with the entire EPA transition team, I had drafted approximately 80% of the agency transition plan. Why resign and why explain why? My commitment to the President and his agenda is ongoing, despite my resignation. Over 20 news organizations have asked me to spell out why I left, and previously I have not as I saw no value to President Trump in doing so. However, telling this brief tale deflates attention on my resignation and allows attention to go to an important issue that demands attention from within and outside the Agency -- specifically, how to address the highly controversial issue of climate and the human influence on climate. In simple terms, Mr. Pruitt and I simply never meshed. Every agency or departmental transition team confronted two challenges: rapid implementation SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000134-00001 of the President's agenda and team-building with the career managers. The EPA transition team faced extreme antagonism by some lower level employees within the Agency and open hostility from the initial Pruitt appointments. My job was to form a working bridge between the Pruitt team and the career professionals while ensuring the President's transition plan moved forward. In the final call, I was unable achieve this mission. Bill Ruckelshaus, the Agency's first and fifth Administrator, recently discussed why senior government officials resign, something he did twice. He explained that it comes down to a question of fundamental principles. Where the appointee is being forced to compromise his core principles, he has no choice but to resign. In my case, Mr. Pruitt and I had basic irreconcilable differences in management approach and professional ethics. Because, in the opening weeks of his tenure, Mr. Pruitt chose not to engage closely with the senior career managers, my function was to bring time- and policy-sensitive issues to his attention and brief him on those issues. Each time, I suggested he meet with the appropriate career managers so as to ensure he had detailed answers to any questions he might have. He rarely did so, relying instead on the extremely short briefs I provided at his morning staff meetings. This problem came to a head at a meeting in which I gave him notice that a delegated EPA authority was going to be used by a career manager on a sensitive issue, an action required by law. I advised him on the Agency's options and he rejected them all. Mr. Pruitt then ordered a different course of action, one I firmly believe is not permitted under law. He left it to me or his chief of staff to direct the career staff to implement the action. In my view, this violated our oaths of office and placed the career staff in an untenable position -- one from which I could not extract them, whether I stayed or resigned. The next week I was ordered to no longer meet with Mr. Pruitt on policy issues, having already been directed to not participate in either personnel or budget matters. Thus, I could not do the job the President asked me to do. Under those conditions, there was but one choice and I made it. Revisiting Climate Science In my commitment to President Trump's agenda, I have identified a structural problem that does not seem to be understood by EPA appointees or White House policy staff I came to Inside EPA to highlight this problem as it is the loudest megaphone into the Agency and within the environmental policy community. It needs to be raised now and strongly, or the President will lose the opportunity to carry out one of his key election promises: reexamination of climate science and how that science informs policy-making that has vast economic and political implications. There are three problems involving climate science that many others within the Administration do not understand: (i) The law does not assign responsibility for assessing the significance of greenhouse gas emissions to EPA; (ii) the law does not permit the federal government to assume the science is settled; and, (iii) the Red team -- Blue team concept simply does not apply within the scientific community. I opt for the Red, White and Blue team approach, with a heavy dash of Karl Popper thrown in. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000134-00002 Who is responsible for assessing climate science? The Subcommittee on Global Change Research (GCRC) of the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability of the National Science and Technology Council was established to plan and coordinate the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), as described in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606). The USGCRP provides for development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated research program, which assesses, predicts and responds to human-induced and natural processes of global change. Among its eleven functions is the duty to conduct a periodic scientific assessment which addresses the following: (1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings; (2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and (3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years. The staff at the Office of Science and Technology Policy are currently engaged in writing the statutorily mandated 2017 "National Climate Assessment." This is a legacy of the Obama administration, one being done as quickly and quietly as possible by the Obama holdovers ensconced at OSTP. The Assessment draws on the science as discussed in another statutorily mandated report, the "Research Plan." Both the Assessment (currently in draft) and the Research Plan parrot an alarmist view of the "settled" science. The Research Plan was published days before President Trump took office. Both the Research Plan and the Assessment need to go back to ground zero and be redone, and a properly appointed OSTP leadership and staff have all the authority and tools needed to reexamine the science. How do we know a redux is needed? The National Academy of Science (well known to lean toward climate alarmism), said so. Among many recommendations, the Academy stated a need for "expanding the discussion of specific topic areas, to better reflect the full breadth of literature and understanding of the subject" and "Wherever possible, figures depicting observed trends should indicate the statistical significance of those trends, or confidence intervals." A close reading of the NAS review indicates the GCRC effort reeks of failure to employ the basics of science as encapsulated in the Information Quality Act (IQA) guidelines that apply to federal agencies, including the White House offices. EPA provides but one of fourteen members to GCRC and its representative is not currently the chairman of the committee nor does it provide the executive director. OSTP and its GCRC have the authority and resources to conduct a reexamination of the science. EPA can play, but it isn't in charge and doesn't have the authority under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to unilaterally undertake this effort. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000134-00003 Red Team -- Blue Team Silliness. The latest riff on climate has been the suggestion of using a Red team -- Blue team approach. As eminent a scientist as Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist who served as Obama's undersecretary for science at the Energy Department, has endorsed the idea. He has been accused of setting up a strawman argument regarding whether climate science is "settled. Mr. Pruitt has indicated he wants Dr. Koonin to be the lead in a Red Team -- Blue Team effort. I can understand that an attorney like Mr. Pruitt might be comfortable with an adversarial process; or that legislators (read politicians) would think this an idea worthy of use. It's an idea that grows out of ignorance of the scientific process or science itself. Red teaming is a practice coming out of the national security community. According to them, it is the practice of viewing a problem from an adversary or competitor's perspective. Those of us who have served in the military understand the value of having one's strategic and tactical approaches challenged by opposing forces. That, however, is not how science works. Science is supposed to be done by individuals "disinterested" in the outcome of their observations. It is not supposed to be a political blood sport. Science consists of making observations and attempting to "falsify" hypotheses based on observation. Where there are conflicting hypotheses, scientists test each. Often, each is falsified and each hypothesis has to be tossed. Lately, "science" has foundered on the rocks of academic imperialism. There is less of a division between "alarmists" and "skeptics" than between those whose future (read funding) is risked by climate skepticism (the alarmists) and those who need not worry about such support (the skeptics). The risk of loss of funding, and consequently loss of academic promotion and standing, is real and imposing. Non-transparency in academic science has exacerbated this problem. When the public, and especially the technologically and scientifically literate public, can't look deeply into the practices of scientists, there is no pressure to maintain the ethics of science. What is needed is the convening of a scientific reevaluation of climate science, done in the most public fashion. As I discussed with senior EPA leadership before I left, webcasting a detailed discussion of critical issues, with the opportunity for viewers to pose appropriate technical questions during the discussion, would allow for the transparency and the depth needed to ensure a full rendering of our understanding of greenhouse gases on climate. It would also educate the 90 percent of U.S. citizens who admit they don't know enough about climate change to have a view on the subject. One additional element would be needed. All points of view and kinds of expertise need to be at the table. In the climate community, this has been nearly impossible to achieve, the animosity and professional fear within the community being what it is. A simple solution is to require any federal grantee or grant applicant to agree to participate in these sessions. You want to feed at the federal trough, you have to be willing to engage with the federal government processes, including these kinds of scientific enterprises. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000134-00004 What about Mr. Prnitt' s idea of televising a climate debate? It's an extension of failure to understand how science works. Strnctured debates are too limiting. If televised, they are too short. If a continuing loop of "Red Team argument," then "Blue Team argument," it is inefficient. The depth needed to be examined cannot be reached in a televised debate. It will in a scientific conclave specifically intended to reach such depths and provide for discussion rather than antagonistic debate. Finally, the fundamental questions that require reconsideration in light of evolving scientific observations include the following and should be the starting point for a full redraft of the Climate Science Special Report: What empirical data (a) characterize climate conditions, changes in those conditions and normal variability in those conditions; and, (b) meet IQA criteria for quality, objectivity, utility and integrity? What do !QA-qualified data tell us about how the climate has changed? Using only !QA-qualified empirical data, (a) how sensitive is climate to GHGs, (b) how much of that sensitivity is attributable to human activity, and (c) what is the utility of these data as the basis for policy-making? What methods for prediction of changes in climate conditions meet criteria necessary to allow policy reliance on such forecasting, criteria such as those mandated in financial forecasting? What !QA-qualified empirical data characterize the beneficial and harmful consequences to human health and welfare of qualified climate change forecasts? IfEPA has a role to play, it is as a member of the GCRC. On climate issues, Mr. Prnitt will best serve this nation in following the law, implementing the climate statute and relying on competent scientists to follow fundamental scientific principles. Recognizing the challenges of a very large government with many departments and agencies, now is the time for leadership from the top. The President needs to appoint a head of OSTP and he or she needs to reorganize and recommit to a proper examination of climate science. -- David Schnare Endnotes 1 See, htt s://www.whitehouse. ov/sites/whitehouse. ov/files/os /SGCR Charter. df. 2 See, "Review of the Draft Climate Science Special Report" at _http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Review-Draft-Clim a te-Science/24 712. 3 htt ://time.com/3445231/climate-denier-settled-science/. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000134-00005 David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000134-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 8/30/2017 3:16:48 PM Canada's Competition Bureau drops investigation into ICSC, Friends of Science, and Heartland Congratulations, Tom Harris! Joe h ://www.cdmontonsun.com/2017 /08/29/com etition-bureau-dro s-investi ration-into-climatcchange-denicr-billboards-ads Competition Bureau drops investigation into climate change denier billboards, ads Rob Csernyik First posted: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 05:31 PM MDT I Updated: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 05:S0AMMDT The federal Competition Bureau has discontinued an inquiry that started last June into groups accused of making false or misleading claims about climate science. Melanie Beauchesne, a senior communications adviser with the federal government, said the allegations against the Friends of Science Society, International Climate Science Coalition and Heartland Institute are no longer being investigated. "After careful consideration of the facts in this case," she said in an email, "and to ensure the effective allocation of limited resources, the commissioner of competition decided to discontinue this inquiry." The 24-page complaint, filed in December 2015 by Charles Hatt of the Ecojustice legal charity, alleged that anti-climate change statements contravened the Competition Act's rules against false and misleading representations. The complaint outlined numerous examples of billboards and other advertisements that denied man-made climate change appearing in cities across Canada, including Edmonton and Calgary. These included billboards from the Friends of Science Society featuring statements such as "Global Warming? Not for 18+ years!" and "The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2." Hatt filed the complaint on behalf of six individuals, including Tzeporah Berman, who recently served on, and was dismissed from, the Alberta Oil Sands Advisory Group, and David Schindler of the University of Alberta. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000135-00001 In a news release Tuesday, Hatt said that public conversation must be based on scientific evidence, not falsehoods and junk science. "We are extremely disappointed that after more than a year, the Competition Bureau has dropped its investigation into climate denier groups who appear to purposely mislead and deceive the public about climate change science to help preserve the status quo of a fossil fuel-based economy," Hatt said in a news release. Schindler, a professor emeritus of biology, spoke with Postmedia about the complaint in 2015. "What they do is use short snippets of data that support their point of view, and (then) talk about there not being anything settled on climate," Schindler said. "Well, recent papers show 97 per cent of people who publish on climate change agree on what causes climate change." With files from Gordon Kent SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000135-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 7/25/2017 3:00:56 PM More on the Red Team idea FYI. Joe POLITICS Contenders for Pruitt's 'red team' say it would be 'a hoot' Published: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 U.S. EPA chief Scott Pruitt and his colleagues won't have any trouble finding scientists keen on poking holes in mainstream views about climate change. Pruitt and other members of the Trump administration have proposed launching a so-called red-team effort to give scientists in the minority the chance to take shots at the prevailing views about how much human activity contributes to climate change. How that effort shapes up remains to be seen. Pruitt has suggested televised sparring between the two sides, and he's reportedly looking to hire a former Obama administration official to lead the effort. Scientists who feel they've been marginalized for years have plenty of ideas for the new administration, and some - feeling newly empowered under the Trump administration - are eager to join the red team. "I'd be interested," said John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Christy has been pushing for a red-team review of climate science for years. He pointed to his testimony before Congress in 2012, when he said taxpayer funds should be used for "well-credentialed scientists to produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses that have been (in their view) marginalized, misrepresented or ignored" in previous government-funded climate reports. Count Judith Curry as another who would join the effort. She's a climatologist and former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000136-00001 "If the powers that be want me involved, I would be happy to help," Curry said last week in an interview. She has been a vocal supporter of the red-team concept. Pruitt is considering hiring former Obama administration energy official Steven Koonin to oversee the effort, according to Myron Ebell, who led the EPA transition team for the Trump administration (Greenwire, July 24). Koonin's April op-ed in The Wall Street Journal calling for climate red teams made waves in the climate world and got the attention of Pruitt, who discussed the article with Koonin in his office that month. Pruitt told Reuters that he "took the opportunity" to talk about the article during an unrelated meeting. He called Koonin's piece "exciting." Koon in declined to comment on whether he's in talks with Pruitt about leading such an effort, but some see him as a logical candidate. "He would be, I think, the ideal person to coordinate this and put the thing together," said Curry. "I would feel very comfortable about this whole thing if he had some role." "He's a straight shooter, and he's got the credibility because of his position in the Obama administration," she said. "He seems like a reasonably objective person to people on both sides." The Trump administration has reached out to the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, for ideas about the initiative, said H. Sterling Burnett, a Heartland research fellow on environmental policy. Burnett suggested some potential candidates for the red team, a roster he called "climate realists." They include Christy; William Happer, a Princeton University physics professor and a rumored contender to be Trump's science adviser; David Legates of the University of Delaware; and Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Christy offered several names, including his colleague at the University of Alabama, Roy Spencer; Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Colorado. While picking members of the red team might be easy, the administration might have a tougher time finding participants for the so-called blue team. Many climate scientists have complained that the exercise presents a trap for those who see the science as settled. Participating would lend the minority of researchers who question mainstream climate science a high-profile platform; refusing to take part would allow critics to say the climate scientists are hiding something ( Climate wire, July 13). So how will this work? Proponents of the red-team approach have plenty of ideas about how it could happen. Pruitt's suggestion that the debates could be televised garnered a lot of attention, but many climate researchers on both sides have slammed that as a bad idea. They say TV would require complex concepts to be too distilled. A televised debate "would be a fiasco," Curry said. Instead, some want to see a series of reports, congressional hearings, or even a website where theories SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000136-00002 are posted and outsiders can take aim when they see problems. Curry suggested a series of reports followed by congressional hearings. Those could look at a range of topics like the social cost of carbon or impact issues like sea-level rise or extreme weather. "You can imagine any number of topics that would be relevant, but the policymakers have to pick which ones they care about," she said. Ebell, who is at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, pointed to the "Team B" effort in the 1970s under then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush to assess the Soviet Union's capabilities. "They took the same intel that the CIA was using, and they gave a different analysis of it," Ebell said. "That's one way to do it." Ebell said if the effort is housed at EPA, it would likely be in the agency's Office of Research and Development. Other offices could also take the lead, like NOAA or the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he said. Christy suggested that topics like the physical science of climate, the benefits of increased carbon dioxide or the value of affordable energy to poor people could be up for discussion. "In this day and age, I would guess you'd do it with reports, probably electronically," Christy said. He suggested a website in which the red team presents its case for the evidence and outsiders take their best shot at its findings. "It would be a hoot and pretty complicated to manage," he said. David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale University who has also been rumored as a possible nominee to lead the White House science office, said he's "hoped for years that we could organize a head-to-head presentation of arguments by some strong man-made climate change people and strong anti-[man-made climate change] thinkers." He said the effort would be like "a war game" in a sense. He pitched having policymakers and the public and press hear presentations, "say, an hour from each side," with another hour or so to ask questions. "This brief session wouldn't settle anything but would make it absolutely clear to everyone, I think, that we need more such sessions -we need a month of them, or half a year of them," he said. Gelernter sees the dialogue as urgent. "We need to have this debate now, this afternoon. It's got to happen, and it will, in some form a form that builds clarity and not just rancor," he said. I hope in EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman didn't respond to a request for comment about how the effort is shaping up. She told E&E News earlier this month: "I understand everyone is very interested in the Red Team/Blue Team, but please stay tuned for more information." Twitter: (drbravcndcr Email: rbravcndcr(rtccncws.nct SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000136-00003 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Joseph Bast Tue 8/29/2017 10:22:09 PM Economist: Weather-related disasters are increasing-but them is falling Sent: Subject: the number of deaths caused by View in browser I E-mail a friend Daily Dispatch I Tuesday I August 29th 2017 Extreme weather: Le dduge The number of natural disasters worldwide has more than quadrupled since 1970 to around 400 a year. There are six times more hydrological events, such as those in Texas or South Asia, now than in 1980. Yet fewer people are dying, thanks to improved building strength, flood-prevention schemes and other measures. To reduce deaths still further, urban planners may have to plan for more such extreme events, writes our data team SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000137-00001 Advertisement Oil excavation: Norwegian wouldn't Ahead of elections next month, Norway's two main parties have said they want to end a ban on oil excavation around the Lofoten Islands, an area estimated to hold 1.3bn barrels of the stuff. Yet there are sound environmental, economic and infrastructural reasons to keep the archipelago pristine. With the Green Party likely to play an important electoral role, analysts expect the ban to remain in place Checked baggage: On the right track The number of lost bags is at an all-time low. Today just six out of every 1,000 airline passengers can expect to be separated from their luggage. That should improve further from June 2018 when the International Air Transport Association introduces mandatory tracking. With checked bags having to be identified at four stages of their journey, traditional luggage tags will need to be replace by something more futuristic ~7.30pm London SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000137-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Nancy Thorner[! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Joseph Bast '·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·" Sent: Subject: Mon 6/5/2017 3:12:09 PM Excellent piece by Nancy Throrner and Ed Ingold on Paris and on sea level To: See especially the highlighted paragraphs. Nancy Thorner can be reached at [___ Ex.__ 6_-.Personal_P_rivacy___ ; Joe http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview robbing-peter-to-pay-pau I.htm I /2017 /06/thorneringold-trum p-rejects- Thorner/Ingold: Trump Rejects Robbing Peter to Pay Paul By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold President Trump announced on Thursday, June 1, 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord, unilaterally and without reservations. As stated by President Trump: It is time to exit the Paris accord and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country ... It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, along with many, many other locations within our great country, before Paris, France. In so doing, President Trump kept his campaign promise to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement, but the fight for withdrawal was a difficult one. President Trump faced enormous pressure from international leaders, multi-national corporations, the political establishment, and even among his own advisors. Trump's speech was powerful, to the point, and effective. He invited Democrats to participate, but warned that nothing will change with or without their support. Should the agreement be renegotiated, it would be as a treaty, with the consent of 2/3rds of the Senate. Even so, this nation would continue to have the clean air and water, but without the bureaucratic and financial burdens imposed by other nations. Not mentioned by Trump was this favorable outcome, with increased oil and natural gas production, we can maintain Europe in the event Russia tries to strangle their supplies from the East. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000138-00001 The mitigation efforts specified by the agreement would reduce global warming by less than 0.2 degrees C by 2100, while funneling hundreds of billions of US dollars into the private bank accounts of third world dictators. If allowed to remain in effect, our economy would be held at less than 2% growth, whereas we need 4% to sustain full employment and our social obligations to our own citizens. It will be hard for Democrats to run for office on the promise that the US will be strangled for a "good cause", yet California Governor Jerry Brown says that his and 13 other Blue states will continue to abide by the Paris Accord. Undoubtedly, the residents of these Blue states will experience "blue feelings" not of their own making, as taxpayer money is spent to pay for the "warm feelings" of Gov. Jerry Brown and other Blue state governors. If"clean" energy is so good, much less sufficient 24/7, why not let it stand or fall on its own merits? Paris Accord as a Ploy to Impose Socialism Apologists for the Paris Accord maintain that any effort is better than none; however, the only effects in the US -- using the Paris Accord as justification -- are the draconian and expensive measures proposed by Obama Former President Barack Obama blasted Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris global warming accords (one of Obama's signature schemes to impose socialism in America) which he characterized as America vacating its leadership role on the world state. Obama had "agreed" to do things which would cripple this nation's economy and make us much less competitive on the world market. On the other hand, China, which also complied with the agreement, agreed to nothing. Meanwhile, China is in the process of building 350 coal fired power plants, one every two weeks under the current plan. In central China coal plants spew unfiltered smoke into the air. On a bad day in Beijing, visibility is about 200 feet. Completely omitted from bluster from the Left is the money Obama committed the US to pay into a "world account" to benefit third world countries. Paradoxically, China is among the benefactors, even though its economy will surpass the US in the next year or two. According to the Left, the US stands in opposition to the rest of the world, but this nation was a rogue nation to begin with. Only half a dozen countries declined the Paris Agreement. This is hardly surprising. The wealthiest nations, other than the US, opted to give much less financial support for what is essentially a "feel-good" agreement. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can expect the complete support of Paul in your endeavors. United Nation's IPCC Panel Reports Misleading with Exaggerated and Inaccurate Global Warming Claims In the wake of President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, came the predictable howl of protest from the eco-theocracy and those who use environmental concerns as pretexts for the imposition of fascist or socialist government controls on human activity. Democrat billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer called Trump's Paris exit a "traitorous act of SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000138-00002 war." Tom Steyer, along with General Electric, is heavily invested in wind power, which receives substantial subsidies from federal and state governments (as long as it's not in the proponent's back yard). Democrats, speaking on behalf of the "vast majority of scientists", were quick to form a chorus of protest and proceeded to read from the same sheet of talking points. While key figures like Kerry and Pelosi are free to improvise their own "facts", anyone daring to dispute the key talking points will be shunned and be subject to an attempt made to primary them out of their positions in Congress. Rep. Nancy Pelosi claimed that President Trump was "dishonoring" God and questioned whether his grandchildren will even be able to breathe air after his announcement a day earlier that he would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Nations of the world, with Al Gore leading the unsubstantiated claims in this nation, have long been assured to believe that reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed, scientific literature. They support the hypothesis that global warming is real and manmade, while rejecting The Heartland lnstitute's reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. The IPCC scientists largely come from academia, which is so politicized to the left that any dissent is considered disloyalty to the organization. As a result, violators are subject to verbal and physical attacks and risk losing their jobs. Supporters, on the other hand, highly vocal with many of them depending on government grants to support their work on climate issues, know that a negative report would end their funding. In addition, very few of the IPCC scientists have actually published scientific papers in support of their position. Out of about 13,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications in 2016, only about a dozen were not in support of climate change, and none provided proof that human activity was to blame, rather that change was occurring. How about coastlines in danger? For starters, it is exceedingly difficult to establish what the sea level actually is. It is measured mainly on its relationship to coastlines and traditionally consists of the mean level half-way between high and low tide, averaged over 19 years. Depending on other factors, like salinity, temperature, air pressure and weather, it can vary as much as 5 meters in many locations. The largest effect is weather, particularly storm surges, where the sea level bulges under low pressure areas like hurricanes. While the sea level is one factor, the shorelines themselves are not constant. Nor is the earth's gravity constant throughout. For simplicity the "surface" of the earth is described in a handful of"geoids ofreference" to describe effective sea level. Only recently have measurements from satellites added a higher degree of consistency, subject to variations due to the factors described above. Are islands in the Pacific sinking? Absolutely. A clear example is the state of the Hawaiian Islands, which extends 1800 miles northwest of the 8 large islands constituting the State of Hawaii. Most of this archipelago are very low to the sea, and remnants are under water, due to erosion. They were formed from volcanic activity over a relatively fixed plume of magma in the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000138-00003 mantle as the continental plate moved to the northwest at a rate of about 32 miles/mm years. Midway Island falls near the terminus, and consists of a coral atoll, which formed around a volcanic island now eroded until is forms the floor of the lagoon in the atoll. The erosion of islands is illustrated dramatically by the Hawaiian archipelago, but applies to similar islands throughout the world. Southern California is subsiding, in part by tectonic movements of the Pacific plate, but mostly because of the depletion of water and petroleum in the last century. Another self-proclaimed "victim" of climate change is Miami Beach, which was built on a barrier island of sand, augmented by landfill. While large buildings are anchored in bedrock, streets and small buildings are built on sand. The consequences are somewhat biblical in nature. Washington DC is built on a swamp, only inches above sea level even in Washington's time. That sort of gives credence to Trump's pledge to "clear the swamp." CO2 a Pollutant Only Because EPA Decided It Was The thrust of the Paris Accord is the reduction in emission of carbon dioxide, a colorless and mostly odorless gas. It is "pollution" only in the sense that the EPA has decided it can be regulated as such. It does not contribute to "dirty air" nor "dirty water," for which regulation will continue unabated. Medically speaking, asthma is caused by allergies, not pollution, although pollution can make it harder for people, including asthmatics, to breath. MIT atmospheric science professor Richard Lindzcn suggests that many claims regarding climate change are exaggerated and unnecessarily alarmist and that the belief that CO2 controls the climate "is pretty close to believing in magic. The Paris Accord actually does little to mitigate climate change nor carbon dioxide emissions. The standards are non-existent and compliance is strictly voluntary. What is spelled out in more detail are payments extracted from developed countries to undeveloped countries. Domestically, President Obama used the Paris Accord to impose new taxes and regulations by fiat, without Congressional approval. It has been used as a lawful treaty without the necessary approval of 2/3rds of the Senate. Global Warming Alarmists as Worshipers of Mother Earth As Dr. James Hansen, NASA's former lead global wanning scientist, said of the UN Paris Pact: The Paris agreement is a fraud really, a fake. It's just bullshit for them to say: We'll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years. It's just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned. Mark Morano, founder of Climate Deport, spoke of global warming as akin to a religious issue to many global warming alarmists, in that they worship "Mother Earth." On the Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler of One America News Network Morano remarked: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000138-00004 What Trump did today was a blow to superstition. No longer in Washington DC do we have to pretend that a UN climate treaty can save the planet or actually control temperature or impact storminess. This truly is a day that science has won out in DC and that is a rare day when it comes to climate change. One could ask, if compliance is voluntary, what does it matter if the US is in or out? The most plausible answer is that it affects the "legacy" of President Obama, hence the legitimacy of his administration and that of Democrats for the last 8 years. $1.6 trillion dollars and a crippled economy is a big price to pay for a few egos. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000138-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 8/28/2017 9:33:17 PM Roy Spencer: Why Houston Flooding Isn't a Sign of Climate Change http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/why-houston-flooding-isnt-a-sign-ofclimate-change/ Why Houston Flooding Isn't a Sign of Climate Change August 28, 2017 By Roy W. Spencer1 Comment In the context of climate change, is what we are seeing in Houston a new level of disaster which is becoming more common? The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur. Floods aren't just due to weather Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because of the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston. There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the midl 800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000139-00001 Downtown Houston Flood of 1935 By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at.::::..=..=.:::, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I'm sure that will continue to rise. Are the rainfall totals unprecedented? Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with land-falling hurricanes. Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don't want all of the rain to land on them. There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results. Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 a.m. this SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000139-00002 Monday morning is · with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston. Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity? In this case, we didn't have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 ( or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can't say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades. Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history. And don't forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time - almost 12 years - without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S. So what makes this event unprecedented? The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I'm not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won't be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event. If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn't seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn't look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual. They will break records for their individual gage locations, but that's the kind of record that is routinely broken somewhere anyway, like record high and low tern peratures. In any case, I'd be surprised if such a meteorological event didn't happen in centuries past in this area, before we were measuring them. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000139-00003 And don't pay attention to claims of 500 year flood events, which most hydrologists disllke because we don't have enough measurements over time to determine such things, especially when they also depend on our altering of the landscape over time. Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read's response was basically, No. "Unprecedented" doesn't necessarily mean it represents a new normal. It can just be a rare combination of events. In 2005 the U.S. was struck by many strong hurricanes, and the NHC even ran out of names to give all of the tropical storms. Then we went almost 12 years without a major (Cat 3 or stronger) hurricane strike. Weird stuff happens. I remember many years ago in one of the NWS annual summaries of lightning deaths there was a golfer who was struck by lightning. While an ambulance transported the man to the hospital, the ambulance was struck by lightning and it finished the poor fellow off. There is coastal lake sediment evidence of catastrophic hurricanes which struck the Florida panhandle over 1,000 years ago, events which became less frequent in the most recent 1,000 years. Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans. Originally published on DrRoySpencer.com. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000139-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 7/24/2017 1:36:45 PM Trump EPA Red Team and the Heartland Institute FYI. Joe httr ://\V\V\V.\vashin~tonexaminer.com/trwm administration-limn~ - p-climate-chan~c-red-team/articl e/2629124 Trump administration lining up climate change 'red team' by John Siciliano I Jul 24 2017 12:02 AM The Heartland Institute has been a long proponent of a Red Team "to critically examine what has become alarmist dogma rather than a sober evaluation of climate science for many years." The Trump administration is in the beginning stages of forming an adversarial "red team" to play devil's advocate in a plan to debate the facts behind global warming and take on what skeptics call climate alarmism. The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency are recruiting scientists by enlisting the help of the Heartland Institute, considered to be the lead think tank for challenging the majority of scientists on climate change. The institute has its own red team, which is the antithesis to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which it calls, unabashedly, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. "The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have reached out to the Heartland Institute to help identify scientists who could constitute a red team, and we've been happy to oblige," Jim Lakely, the group's communications director, told the Washington Examiner. "This effort is long overdue," he said. "The climate scientists who have dominated the deliberations and the products of the IPCC have gone almost wholly without challenge. That is a SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000140-00001 violation of the scientific method and the public's trust." The Heartland Institute has been a long proponent of a red team "to critically examine what has become alarmist dogma rather than a sober evaluation of climate science for many years," Lakely said. "In fact, Heartland has worked closely with a red team that has been examining the science for several years: the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC." What the Trump administration may pull together in creating its red team might look a little like what Heartland has created. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt "believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals ... provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science," a senior administration official told the news service Climatewire late last month. "We are, in fact, very excited about this initiative. Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh, and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing," the official said. The Heartland team continues to publish reports challenging IPCC and other climate scientists, which it began eight years ago. The group has produced four volumes of "Climate Change Reconsidered," with a fifth coming out later this year, Lakely said. "Hundreds of scientists have reviewed and helped produce those volumes, which have been published by the Heartland Institute," Lakely said. The reports total more than 3,000 pages. The irony behind the Trump administration taking up the approach is that it was suggested by a former Obama administration official, Steve Koonin, who suggested a red team-blue team approach to clear out the politics and address the science. Koonin teaches at New York University. He suggested the idea in an April op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The exercise would include a red team, representing climate skeptics, squaring off against a blue team, representing the majority of scientists who believe the Earth's temperature is warming because of increased greenhouse gas emissions caused by manmade activity. The team approach was created by the military during the Cold War era to test assumptions about the Soviet Union's military capabilities. For climate change, it would offer an adversarial approach to challenge assumptions and form different conclusions when considering how much of warming is due to carbon dioxide emissions and how much is from natural changes. "It's a great opportunity for this country to have a conversation about the climate and get the politics out of it and bring the scientists together," is how Energy Secretary Rick Perry floated it in June before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the fiscal 2018 budget. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000140-00002 "As a matter of fact, the undersecretary of energy for President Obama, Steven Koonin, has said, who is a theoretical physicist and was over at the department and knows this issue rather well, and he says it's probably time for us to have a conversation with all the politics out of room." Perry was the first administration official to suggest the idea in public, although he suggested it hypothetically, with no plan to implement the team. But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is setting the plan in motion. "It's my understanding that Scott Pruitt is trying to hire Koonin to be in charge of the whole thing," said Myron Ebell, Trump's former EPA transition chief, who is environment director at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. Neither the EPA nor Koonin returned calls to confirm his being tapped for the post of red team leader. But Ebell points out the logic in having him participate. "He's an honest broker, right?" Ebell said. "He served in the Obama administration but he thinks we haven't had a sufficient debate. He would have a lot of credibility, I think, running the whole process. "I don't know what they have in mind in how to do it, and I certainly don't know what Koonin has in mind," Ebell said. "In general, we need to go beyond what they establishment says whenever they're confronted, which is, 'You can trust us.' I don't think we can trust them." Eb ell says he would rather "trust, then verify," using former President Ronald Reagan's old adage when dealing with the Soviet Union. "I'm not saying the scientists are Soviets. I just think that's a good approach to take, particularly when the policies being advocated are going to cost trillions of dollars over the next several decades." A group that is often tapped to bring different groups together to work out difficult political issues is not sure about how the administration will shape the teams or what the goal of the process will be. "It's still not entirely clear what the scope of the 'red team-blue team' exercise will be, but in our evaluation, human activity is having an impact on the climate," said Tracy Terry, director of the energy project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "With climate change occurring, the exercise could be useful if it focuses on the range of potential impacts and best approaches to mitigation and adaptation." A scientist with the environmental think tank World Resources Institute says it is clear that the approach is wrong. "Indeed, it has been used by major companies in internal strategic exercises, but it is entirely inappropriate for science," Kelly Levin wrote in a recent blog post. "It has no place in determining the science of a changing climate." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000140-00003 Levin heads the group's program to track carbon emissions in the developing world. "The overwhelming majority - 97 percent - of peer-reviewed papers in the literature support the consensus view that human activities have contributed to the majority of recent warming," with a "vanishing small proportion" of published research rejecting the scientific consensus, she said. But "giving equal, 50-50 weight to both the red and blue teams in the exercise would mislead the public into thinking there is a debate when there isn't one," Levin said. "And the Trump administration is likely to stack the red team with fossil fuel industry interests, as it has done with its Cabinet positions." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000140-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 2:25:18 PM Wow, Der Spiegel really really really really hates Trump With apologies for its length, but this probably gives a full picture of what Europe thinks of our president. I gave up highlighting the most outrageous statements after a while. Geeze! Joe http://www.spiegel.de/intemational/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-westem-rift-deepensa-l 150486-amp.html Friday, 6/2/2017 06:00 PM Donald Trump's Triumph of Stupidity German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other G-7 leaders did all they could to convince Trump to remain part of the Paris Agreement. But he didn't listen. Instead, he evoked deep-seated nationalism and plunged the West into a conflict deeper than any since World War II US. President Donald Trump announced his intention to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change on Thursday. In doing so, America joins Syria and Nicaragua as the only non-signatories to the deal. By SPIEGEL Staff German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other world leaders did all they could at the G-7 summit SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00001 in Sicily last week to convince Trump to remain a part of the Paris Agreement. When it had become clear that they had failed, French President Emmanuel Macron said: "Now, China leads." Until the very end, they tried behind closed doors to get him to change his mind. For the umpteenth time, they presented all the arguments -- the humanitarian ones, the geopolitical ones and, of course, the economic ones. They listed the advantages for the economy and for American companies. They explained how limited the hardships would be. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was the last one to speak, according to the secret minutes taken last Friday afternoon in the luxurious conference hotel in the Sicilian town of Taormina -meeting notes that DER SPIEGEL has been given access to. Leaders of the world's seven most powerful economies were gathered around the table and the issues under discussion were the global economy and sustainable development. The newly elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, went first. It makes sense that the Frenchman would defend the international treaty that bears the name of France's capital: The Paris Agreement. "Climate change is real and it affects the poorest countries," Macron said. Then, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reminded the U.S. president how successful the fight against the ozone hole had been and how it had been possible to convince industry leaders to reduce emissions of the harmful gas. Finally, it was Merkel's tum. Renewable energies, said the chancellor, present significant economic opportunities. "If the world's largest economic power were to pull out, the field would be left to the Chinese," she warned. Xi Jinping is clever, she added, and would take advantage of the vacuum it created. Even the Saudis were preparing for the post-oil era, she continued, and saving energy is also a worthwhile goal for the economy for many other reasons, not just because of climate change. But Donald Trump remained unconvinced. No matter how trenchant the argument presented by the increasingly frustrated group of world leaders, none of them had an effect. "For me," the U.S. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00002 president said, "it's easier to stay in than step out." But environmental constraints were costing the American economy jobs, he said. And that was the only thing that mattered. Jobs, jobs, jobs. At that point, it was clear to the rest of those seated around the table that they had lost him. Resigned, Macron admitted defeat. "Now China leads," he said. Still, it is likely that none of the G-7 heads of state and government expected the primitive brutality Trump would stoop to when announcing his withdrawal from the international community. Surrounded by sycophants in the Rose Garden at the White House, he didn't just proclaim his withdrawal from the climate agreement, he sowed the seeds of international conflict. His speech was a break from centuries of Enlightenment and rationality. The president presented his political statement as a nationalist manifesto of the most imbecilic variety. It couldn't have been any worse. A Catastrophe for the Climate His speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest. In Trump's mind, the climate agreement is an instrument allowing other countries to enrich themselves at the expense of the United States. "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," he said. Trump left no doubt that the wellbeing of the American economy is the only value he understands. It's no wonder that the other countries applauded when Washington signed the Paris Agreement, he said. "We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be. They won't be." Trump's withdrawal is a catastrophe for the climate. The U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases -- behind China -- and is now no longer part of global efforts to put a stop to climate change. It's America against the rest of the world, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the only other countries that haven't signed the Paris deal. But the effects on the geopolitical climate are likely to be just as catastrophic. Trump's speech provided only the most recent proof that discord between the U.S. and Europe is deeper now than at any time since the end of World War II. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00003 Now, the Western community of values is standing in opposition to Donald Trump. The G-7 has become the G-6. The West is divided. For three-quarters of a century, the U.S. led and protected Europe. Despite all the mistakes and shortcomings exhibited by U.S. foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, America's claim to leadership of the free world was never seriously questioned. That is now no longer the case. The U.S. is led by a president who feels more comfortable taking part in a Saudi Arabian sword dance than he does among his NATO allies. And the estrangement has accelerated in recent days. First came his blustering at the NA TO summit in Brussels, then the disagreement over the climate deal in Sicily followed by Merkel's speech in Bavaria, in which she called into question America's reliability as a partner for Europe. A short time later, Trump took to Twitter to declare a trade war -- and now, he has withdrawn the United States from international efforts to combat climate change. A Downward Pointing Learning Curve Many had thought that Trump could be controlled once he entered the White House, that the office of the presidency would bring him to reason. Berlin had placed its hopes in the moderating influence of his advisers and that there would be a sharp learning curve. Now that Trump has actually lived up to his threat to leave the climate deal, it is clear that if such a learning curve exists, it points downward. The chancellor was long reluctant to make the rift visible. For Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany, the alliance with the U.S. was always more than political calculation, it reflected her deepest political convictions. Now, she has -- to a certain extent, at least -terminated the trans-Atlantic friendship with Trump's America. In doing so, the German chancellor has become Trump's adversary on the international stage. And Merkel has accepted the challenge when it comes to trade policy and the quarrel over NATO finances. Now, she has done so as well on an issue that is near and dear to her heart: combating climate change. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00004 Merkel's aim is that of creating an alliance against Trump. If she can't convince the U.S. president, her approach will be that of trying to isolate him. In Taormina, it was six countries against one. Should Trump not reverse course, she is hoping that the G-20 in Hamburg in July will end 19: 1. Whether she will be successful is unclear. Trump has identified Germany as his primary adversary. Since his inauguration in January, he has criticized no country -- with the exception of North Korea and Iran -- as vehemently as he has Germany. The country is "bad, very bad," he said in Brussels last week. Behind closed doors at the NATO summit, Trump went after Germany, saying there were large and prosperous countries that were not living up to their alliance obligations. And he wants to break Germany's economic power. The trade deficit with Germany, he recently tweeted, is "very bad for U.S. This will change." An Extreme Test Merkel's verdict following Trump's visit to Europe could hardly be worse. There has never been an open break with America since the end of World War II; the alienation between Germany and the U.S. has never been so large as it is today. When Merkel's predecessor, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, refused to provide German backing for George W. Bush's invasion oflraq, his rebuff was limited to just one single issue. It was an extreme test of the trans-Atlantic relationship, to be sure, but in contrast to today, it was not a quarrel that called into question commonly held values like free trade, minority rights, press freedoms, the rule oflaw -- and climate policies. To truly understand the consequences of Trump's decision, it is important to remember what climate change means for humanity -- what is hidden behind the temperature curves and emission-reduction targets. Climate change means that millions are threatened with starvation because rain has stopped falling in some regions of the planet. It means that sea levels are rising and islands and coastal zones are flooding. It means the melting of the ice caps, more powerful storms, heatwaves, water shortages and deadly epidemics. All of that leads to conflicts over increasingly limited resources, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00005 to flight and to migration. In the U.S., too, there were plenty of voices warning the president of the consequences of his decision, Trump's daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner among them. Others included cabinet members like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, along with pretty much the country's entire business elite. Companies from Exxon and Shell to Google, Apple and Amazon to Wal-Mart and PepsiCo all appealed to Trump to not isolate the U.S. on climate policy. They are worried about international competitive disadvantages in a world heading toward green energy, whether the U.S. is along for the ride or not. Google, Microsoft and Apple have long since begun drawing their energy from renewable sources, with the ultimate goal of complete freedom from fossil fuels. Wind and solar farms are booming in the U.S. -- and hardly an investor can be found anymore for coal mining. A long list of U.S. states, led by California, have charted courses that are in direct opposition to Trump's climate policy. According to a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, almost three-quarters of Americans are opposed to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The Absurdity of Trump's Histrionics On the other side are right-wing nationalists such as Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon, who deny climate change primarily because fighting it requires international cooperation. Powerful Republicans have criticized the climate deal with the most specious of all arguments. The U.S., they say, would be faced with legal consequences were it to miss or lower its climate targets. Yet international agreement on the Paris accord was only possible because it contains no punitive tools at all. The only thing signatories must do is report every five years how much progress they have made toward achieving their self-identified climate protection measures. [The cover of this week's issue of DER SPIEGEL] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00006 Therein lies the absurdity of Trump's histrionics. Nothing would have been easier for the U.S. than to take part proforma in United Nations climate-related negotiations while completely ignoring climate protection measures at home -- which Trump has been doing anyway since his election. In late March, for example, he signed an executive order to unwind part of Barack Obama's legacy, the Clean Power Plan. Among other measures, the plan called for the closure of aging coal-fired power plants, the reduction of methane emissions produced by oil and natural gas drilling, and stricter rules governing fuel efficiency in new vehicles. Without these measures, Obama's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025, in comparison to 2005, will hardly be achievable. But Trump is also planning to head in the opposite direction. To make the U.S. less dependent on energy imports, he wants to reh1rn to coal, one of the dirtiest energy sources in existence -- even though energy independence was largely achieved years ago thanks to cheap, less environmentally damaging natural gas. German and European efforts will now focus on keeping the other agreement signatories on board, which Berlin has already been working on for several weeks now. Because of the nowvisible effects of climate change and the falling prices for renewable energies, German officials believe that the path laid forward by Paris is irreversible. Berlin officials say that EU member states are eager to move away from fossil fuels, as are China and India. Even emissaries from Russia and Saudi Arabia, countries whose governments aren't generally considered to be enthusiastic promoters of renewable energy sources, have indicated to the Germans that "Paris will be complied with." On Thursday in Berlin, Merkel and Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang demonstratively reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement. Keqiang even spoke of "green growth." China and India are likely to not just meet, but exceed their climate targets. China has been reducing its coal consumption for the last three years and plans for over 100 new coal-fired power plants have been scrapped. India, too, is abstaining from the construction of new coalfired plants and will likely meet its goal of generating 40 percent of its electricity from non-fossil fuels by 2022, eight years earlier than planned. Both countries invest in solar and wind energy and in both, electricity from renewable sources is often cheaper than coal power. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00007 Isolating the American President The problem is that all of that still won't be enough to limit global warming to significantly below 2 degrees Celsius, as called for in the Paris deal. Much more commitment, much more decisiveness is necessary, particularly in countries that can afford it. German, for example, is almost certain to fall short of its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020 relative to 1990. In Taormina, Chancellor Merkel did all she could to isolate the American president. In the summit's closing declaration, she wanted to specifically mention the conflict between the U.S. and its allies over the climate pact. Normally, such documents tend to remain silent on such differences. At the G-20 meeting in Hamburg, Merkel plans to stay the course. She hopes that all other countries at the meeting will stand up to the United States. Even if Saudi Arabia ends up supporting its ally Trump, the end result would still be 18:2, which doesn't look much better from the perspective of Washington. Merkel, in any case, is doing all she can to ramp up the pressure on Trump. "The times in which we could completely rely on others are over to a certain extent," she said in her beer tent speech last Sunday. It shouldn't be underestimated just how bitter it must have been for her to utter this sentence, and how deep her disappointment. Merkel, who grew up in the Soviet sphere of influence, never had much understanding for the anti-Americanism often found in western Germany. U.S. dependability is partly to thank for Eastern Europe's post-1989 freedom. Merkel has shown a surprising amount of passion for the trans-Atlantic relationship over the years. She came perilously close to openly supporting the 2003 U.S. invasion oflraq and enjoyed a personal friendship with George W. Bush, despite the fact that most Germans had little sympathy for the U.S. president. Later, Merkel's response to the NSA's surveillance of her mobile phone was largely stoic and she also didn't react when Trump called her refugee policies "insane." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00008 As such, Merkel's comments last Sunday about her loss of trnst in America were eye-opening. It was a completely new tone and Merkel knew that it would generate attention. Indeed, that's what she wanted. A Clear Message to the U.S. Her sentence immediately circled the globe and was seen among Trnmp opponents as proof that the most powerful woman in Europe had lost hope that Trnmp could be brought to reason. Prior to speeches to her party, such as the one held last Sunday, she always gets a manuscript from Christian Democratic Union (CDU) headquarters in Berlin, but she herself writes the most decisive passages. The comment about Europe's allies was a clear message to the U.S., but it was also meant for a domestic audience. Her speech marked the launch of her re-election campaign. Merkel knows that her campaign adversaries from the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) intend to make foreign policy an issue in the election. After all, it has a long history of doing so. Willy Brandt did so well in 1969 and 1972 in part because he called into question the Cold War course that had been charted to that point. Gerhard Schroder managed to win in 2002 in part because of his vociferous rejection of German involvement in the coming Iraq War. Last Monday, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a senior SPD member, took advantage of a roundtable discussion on migration in the Foreign Ministry to lay into Trnmp. The largest challenges we currently face, such as climate change, he said, have been made "even larger by the new U.S. isolationism." Those who don't resist such a political course, Gabriel continued, "make themselves complicit." It was a clear shot at the chancellor. But her speech last Sunday shielded Merkel from possible accusations of abetting Trnmp, though she nevertheless wants to keep the dialogue going with Washington. Speaking to conservative lawmakers in Berlin on Tuesday, she said that the trans-Atlantic relationship continues to be of "exceptional importance." Nevertheless, she added, differences should not be swept under the mg. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00009 Merkel realized early on just how difficult it would be to work with the new U.S. president, partly because she watched videos of some of his pre-inauguration appearances. Speaking to CDU leaders in December, she said that Trump was extremely serious about his slogan "America First." The chancellor's image of Trump has shifted since then, but not for the better. The first contacts with the new government in Washington were sobering. When Christoph Heusgen, her foreign policy adviser, met for the first time with Michael Flynn, who was soon to become Trump's shortlived national security adviser, he was shocked by his American counterpart's lack of knowledge. Shattered Hopes But there were still grounds for optimism. Early on, Merkel thought that the new U.S. government's naiveite might mean that Trump could be influenced. She was hoping to play the role of educator, an approach that initially looked like it might be successful. In a telephone conversation in January, Merkel explained to Trump the situation in Ukraine. She had the impression that he had never before seriously considered the issue and she was able to convince him not to lift the sanctions that had been placed on Russia. The new president has likewise thus far refrained from moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has also left the Iran deal alone and revised initial statements in which he had said that NATO was "obsolete." In the Chancellery, there was hope that Trump could in fact become something like a second-coming of Ronald Reagan. Those hopes have now been shattered. Because Trump has had difficulty fulfilling many of his campaign promises, he has become even more intransigent. Merkel watched in annoyance as Trump did all he could in Saudi Arabia to avoid upsetting his hosts only to come to the NA TO summit and cast public aspersions at his allies. The bad thing about Trump is not that he criticizes partners, says a confidante of Angela Merkel's, but that in contrast to his predecessors, he calls the entire international order into question. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00010 At one point, Merkel took Trump aside in Sicily to speak with him privately about climate protection and the president told her that he would prefer to delay his decision on the Paris Agreement until after the G-20 in July. You can postpone everything, Merkel replied, but it's not helpful. She urged that he make a decision prior to the Hamburg summit. He has now done so. To the degree that one can make such a claim, Trump has a rather functional view of Merkel. He wants her to increase defense spending and to reduce Germany's trade surplus with the U.S., even if it is a political impossibility. And he wants Merkel to force other European leaders to do the same, even though Merkel doesn't possess the power to do so. In Trump's world, there are no allies and no mature relationships, just self-interested countries with short-term interests. History means nothing to Trump; as a hard-nosed real-estate magnate, he is only interested in immediate gains. He cares little for long-term relationships. Two close advisers to the president contributed a piece to the Wall Street Journal this week that can be seen as something like a "Trump Doctrine." "The world is not a 'global community,"' wrote Gary Cohn and Herbert Raymond McMaster, Trump's economic and security advisers. The subtext is clear: The global order, which the United States helped build, belongs to the past. There are no alliances anymore, just individual interests -- no allies, just competitors. It was a clear signal to America's erstwhile Western allies that they can no longer rely on the United States as a partner. It's not surprising that Moscow is gleefully scoffing at the losers in Europe. Mariya Sakharova, the Foreign Ministry's brash spokeswoman, gloated openly Tuesday on Vladimir Solovyov's popular Russian talk show. If Europe is going to have to take its fate into its own hands, as Merkel says, that just shows how different things used to be when the Continent simply followed the marching orders given by Washington, she said. "We always thought that the Europeans had united in the European Union -but they were really just standing at attention," she sneered to the approving giggles of her host. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00011 The open government gloating is indicative of the mood currently prevailing in the Russian capital. For Vladimir Putin, a dream appears to have come true in recent days; Trump could prove to be a godsend. For some time, Moscow has been trying to drive a wedge between the trans-Atlantic alliance. But now it looks as though the American president is doing that job for him. In the past, the Americans guaranteed Europe's security with their nuclear and conventional capabilities. Russia would stand to profit the most from a loosening or possible breakup of the trans-Atlantic relationship. If that were to happen, Putin will have been successful in his strategy of undermining the cohesion of liberal Western democracies. The fact that the process of disintegration would go so fast has surprised even the Russians. "The trans-Atlantic frictions had been obvious for months. But I didn't expect Merkel to say that Europe needs to free itself from its dependency on the United States," says Konstantin Kosachev, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federal Council, the upper chamber of Russia's parliament. In Brussels, Berlin and many other European capitals, pro-European forces are hoping that Moscow is premature with its celebratory mood. They believe the Trump factor could have the reverse effect and actually serve as a magnet to pull the quarreling Europeans back together. "We've had enough," says Manfred Weber, the influential German politician who leads the conservative party caucus in the European Parliament. "Despite goodwill, we are at a turning point. We have to seize our own opportunity and show that we are just as prepared to act with our trade policies as we are with defense." Indeed, the Trump factor appears to be having an aphrodisiac effect on European defense cooperation efforts. What had seemed nearly impossible only a short time ago has now become plausible. France and Germany have long been pushing for closer military cooperation in Europe. The French are interested in doing so to assert their own claim to leadership on the Continent, alongside the Americans. And the Germans are interested in diverting attention from the fact that they have spent years spending too little on their armed forces. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00012 In the past, it had always been the British and the Eastern Europeans who stood in the way of the joint efforts promoted by Germany and France -- for the most part out of fear that an internal European competitor to NA TO could result. But Britain's decision to leave the EU also means that it will no longer be able to block such efforts. The Eastern Europeans, meanwhile, who see themselves as being on the front against Russia, have lost faith in Trump's pledges to the alliance. The government in Berlin isn't the only one taking note of the Estonians' eagerness for progress on defense cooperation once it assumes the rotating six-month presidency of the European Council in July. The country had previously been largely opposed to deeper European defense cooperation. No one believes that Europe can ensure its future security on its own. Washington's military role is too dominant for that. The U.S. spends two and a half times more on defense each year than all the European NA TO member states combined. That's why the unthinkable has always been ignored: That Trump could actually withdraw from NATO. But the climate issue has demonstrated that the unthinkable is not something that Trump shies away from. Europe's Military Push The more unpredictable this major ally becomes, the more the Europeans will have to rely on their own military capabilities. A few weeks ago, they agreed in Brussels to create a joint command center that would be responsible in the future for European training missions in Africa and the naval operation Sophia against human-traffickers in the Mediterranean Sea. After lengthy hesitation, even Britain relented and agreed in the end. Further projects may follow, including a European medical command, joint officer training and a European logistics hub. The French and the Germans also want to create a joint air transport unit. The Dutch have offered to take leadership of a multinational alliance providing air-to-air refueling and transport aircraft. On Wednesday, the European Commission plans to present a paper playing out a number of scenarios of what stronger military cooperation in the European Union might look like in 2025, if the EU member states move to more closely coordinate their military activities. Under the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00013 scenarios, EU member states would more closely coordinate their military planning and they would also conduct joint exercises on a regular basis. Even though there is an urgent need for it, the most difficult area of cooperation seems to be that of joint arms procurement. "There are 178 different weapon systems in the EU, compared to 30 in the U.S.," says European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The result is that Europeans achieve only 15 percent of the efficiency enjoyed by the Americans with their defense spending. The Germans and the French, especially, would like to cooperate more closely in this area and develop drones, tanks and combat helicopters together. But previous experience has been sobering. The negotiations are taking an eternity and no agreement is in sight. The EU is not setting out to challenge the U.S. on security policy -- it merely wants to become less dependent on the Americans, which is something Washington might support as well. Trade, on the other hand, could be the subject of major conflicts. German Economics Minister Brigitte Zypries and her senior deputy Matthias Machnig experienced firsthand during a trip to the American capital last week, just how big the chasm is on trade issues. Both politicians, members of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), were shocked after their talks with Republican members of Congress and the president's trade advisers. "Some of the Americans we met with have a serious misjudgment about the economy," Machnig reports. "They believe that the high trade deficit the U.S. has with other countries is largely the product of bad trade deals." They claim that they are constantly getting defeated in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) courts. "But the Americans use the WTO system just like every other country to address trade disputes. And they are often successful." With Trump, he says, the U.S. is already well on its way to self-isolation. An Opportunity for Europe? What Trump might call a disaster, could actually present a major opportunity for Europe. The SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00014 EU could offer an alternative to trading partners feeling snubbed by the Americans. That's one reason that negotiations have been accelerated for free trade agreements between the EU and Japan and the Mercosur countries of South America. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom herself even personally attacked Trump during her recent visit to Mexico. "Now is the time to build bridges, not walls," she said. In addition to trade, the EU also wants to fill the vacuum being left behind by the United States on climate protection. "It is Europe's duty to say: That's not how it works," EU Commission President Juncker said on Wednesday in Berlin. "The Americans can't just leave the climate protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that because he doesn't get close enough to the dossiers to fully understand them." Juncker says it will take three to four years for the United States to withdraw from the agreement. "We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in Taormina in clear German sentences. It seems our attempt failed, but the law is the law and it must be obeyed." He also said that "not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news." In addition to defense, trade and climate protection, there's a fourth area where the Trump factor could generate some movement. Emancipation from America can only succeed if a way can be found to prevent the common currency from once again becoming the plaything of international financial investors. The introduction of the euro was intended as the crown achievement of the European peace project, but it instead led to massive discord on the Continent during the crisis. In response, there are numerous proposals on the table for eliminating the design flaws in the currency union. At the core is the question of balancing out the interests of the Northern and Southern European countries. Members in Northern Europe are pushing for fiscal discipline and business innovation, whereas Southern Europe wants to be able to use government borrowing to spur growth if need be. On Wednesday, the European Commission presented a reflection paper on the future of the euro. Suddenly, many proposals no longer sounded as unrealistic as they did only a few months ago: that of the creation of a post for an EU finance minister and Eurogroup head and a eurozone treasury. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00015 Macron's Momentum Much of the recent momentum is attributable to one man: new French President Macron. Ifhe makes good on his pledges and forges ahead with economic reforms in his country, it would make it increasingly difficult for Germany to balk at France's ideas for the eurozone. Merkel has long hinted as much by saying she would be prepared to make the necessary changes to the European treaties. "We can give the whole situation a new dynamic," Merkel said during Macron's recent visit to Berlin. Whether Europe can succeed in breaking free from the United States will ultimately hinge on Merkel and Macron working together. If Merkel wins the election in September, she will have, together with the new French president, the unique opportunity to give Europe the international credibility that it now lacks, says American historian Anne Applebaum. She says Europe should now develop its own foreign policy, its own security and possibly even its own army. "Shouldn't a European navy blockade the Libyan coast? Shouldn't Europeans be thinking about ending the war in Syria? Shouldn't Europe have a joint strategy to push back against Russian disinformation? All of these things are possible, but only if Europe's political leaders start working on them now." The idea that the Europeans could no longer primarily rely "on others," that they have to become more active on their own, was Macron's position even before his election. He wants to create greater capacity for the EU to act, and he wants to adapt its institutions to the new challenges. That's one reason he appointed Sylvie Goulard, a longtime member of the European Parliament who speaks perfect German, as his defense minister. "Whether we loudly proclaim our concerns as Europeans or not, the main thing is making it more capable of acting," says one French diplomat. The French share Merkel's view that Trump's Washington is no longer a reliable partner. Macron's statement before the G-7 that he sees Trump as a "partner" was nothing more than lip service. And French diplomats were appalled by how poorly prepared the Americans were in both Brussels and at the G-7 summit in Taormina. Still, it's unlikely that Macron, who has so far proven himself to be quite skillful with mind games, will seek an open conflict with Trump. A trans-Atlantic clash isn't in his interests. Macron firmly believes in his own persuasiveness, his charm and his seductiveness. At first, he will try to do everything he can to steer Trump where he wants him to go. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00016 And Angela Merkel may find all the things in Macron that she likely sought in vain in his predecessor. Macron could become a reliable and strong partner for Germany. Indeed, there has never before been a French government with as many members possessing deep knowledge of Germany as this one. Can Merkel Forge Alliance Against Trump? Will the German chancellor succeed in forging alliances against Donald Trump on the important disputes? It won't be easy. In terms of climate protection, there is a chance. But it's much less likely on trade and defense. When it comes to burden sharing within NATO, Trump isn't alone in his views. And in terms of Germany's trade surplus, it isn't clear who will face isolation. Merkel is now convinced that Europe must take its fate into its own hands. At the same time, Germany also can't be totally certain who its allies are. When Trump began attacking the Germans behind closed doors in Brussels, it was Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, above all, who sprung to the chancellor's defense. Participants say it was alarming how many NA TO members kissed the ground before Trump -- and not just the usual suspects from Eastern Europe. Merkel has many fans. She is the star among liberals around the world. The leftist American press had already begun declaring her the new leader of the free world even before Trump's election. In an opinion piece this week, Britain's Guardian heaped praise on Merkel, noting that "her statesmanship, her ease, her ability to broker deals and relationships is ever more impressive." But her glorification in the press will do little to help in her test of strength with the world's most powerful man. And what about China? The major Asian power is standing in the wings, ready to take over the role of the world's leading nation, which America appears to be abandoning. At the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, President Xi Jinping sought to present himself as the most powerful advocate of global free trade. Now China also wants to become the leading nation when it comes to climate protection. But officials in Merkel's Chancellery aren't harboring many illusions when it comes to the new partner. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00017 At moments when nothing else helps, Merkel these days, it is said, takes a look at her appointment calendar -- more specifically at June 17. That Saturday, Merkel plans to fly to Rome, where the pope is hosting a private reception for Protestants. The chancellor wants to present Pope Francis with the goals of her G-20 summit in Hamburg in July, on issues like migration and women's rights, for example. It doesn't require much imagination to believe that the two are on the same page when it comes to Trump. The differences of opinion between the U.S. president and the head of the Catholic Church are no secret. In contrast to Trump, Pope Francis has called for the protection of God's creation and for the world to battle climate change. "It is inconceivable that the pope did not discuss climate change in his conversation with Trump," says one person close to the Vatican who has intimate knowledge of Francis' thinking. But it doesn't appear to have done anything to help. By Christian Esch, Konstantin von Hammerstein, Julia Amalia Heyer, Christiane Hoffmann, Horand Knaup, Peter Miiller, RalfNeukirch, Rene Pfister, Christoph Scheuermann, Christoph Schult, Samiha Shafy and Gerald Traufetter SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000141-00018 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 8/28/2017 4:31 :06 PM Delightful put down by Cork Hayden of Scientific American piece on alternative energy h Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000142-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 7/23/2017 4:53:34 PM Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies Great stuff here from Paul Driessen. Joe [__ Ex. _6_-_Personal _Privacy__! Tesla sales have plummeted to near zero in Hong Kong and Denmark, as generous subsidies evaporated. Its $7,500-per-car federal rebate (taxpayer subsidy) is about to start its death spiral. So California is halfway toward enacting legislation that would provide $3 billion in state point-of-sale rebates: as much as $30,000 or even $40,000 per car. The legislature apparently wants to continue ensuring that a// families help perpetuate programs that thus far have transferred 90% of all electric car subsidies to the wealthiest 20% of families. Meanwhile, ardent renewable energy aficionados insist that the key to a wind and solar future is battery backup systems ... which are just around the corner. Not so fast, says technology guru Mark Mills. Storing 12 hours worth of household and business electricity demand per day, plus charging up 1.4 billion currently gasolinepowered vehicles, would require 1,250 years of production from every existing lithium battery factory worldwide. It's not going to happen, he says. And that's just the beginning of the subsidy and sustainability fantasies we must deal with. Thank you for posting my article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues. Best regards, Paul Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies More subsidies from exhausted California taxpayers cannot compensate for hard SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000143-00001 realities Paul Driessen The first justification was that internal combustion engines polluted too much. But emissions steadily declined, and today's cars emit about 3% of what their predecessors did. Then it was oil imports: electric vehicles (EVs) would reduce foreign dependency and balance of trade deficits. Bountiful oil and natural gas supplies from America's hydraulic fracturing revolution finally eliminated that as an argument. Now the focus is on climate change. Every EV sale will help prevent assumed and asserted manmade temperature, climate and weather disasters, we're told- even if their total sales represented less than 1% of all U.S. car and light truck sales in 2016 (Tesla sold 47,184 of the 17,557,955 vehicles sold nationwide last year), and plug-in EVs account for barely 0.15% of 1.4 billion vehicles on the road worldwide. In recent months, Tesla sales plunged to nearly zero in Hong Kong and Denmark, as huge government subsidies were eliminated. Now Tesla's U.S. subsidies face extinction. Once its cumulative sales since 2009 reach 200,000 vehicles in the next few months, federal tax rebates will plunge from $7,500 per car to zero over an 18-month period. The same thing will happen to other EV companies that reach 200,000. Subsidies clearly drive sales for EV s, which are often double the cost of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles. Free charging stations, and access to HOV lanes for plug-ins with only the driver, further sweeten the deal. For those who can afford the entry fee, the ride is smooth indeed. In fact, a 2015 study found, the richest 20% of Americans received 90% of hundreds of millions in taxpayer EV subsidies. Where were all the government "offices of environmental justice" when this was happening? How much must we subsidize our wealthiest families, to save us from manmade planetary disasters that exist only in Al Gore movies and alarmist computer models? Perhaps recognizing the reverse Robin Hood injustice - or how unsustainable free EV stations are for cash-strapped cities - Palo Alto (where Tesla Motors is headquartered) announced that it will charge 23 cents per kWh to charge plug-in vehicles in city parking garages. Others communities and states may also reduce their rebates, HOV access and free charging, further reducing incentives to purchase pricey EVs. Meanwhile, Lyft and Uber are also decreasing the justification for shelling out $35,000 to $115,000 or even $980,000 for an electric car that gets very limited mileage per charge. Long excursions still need internal combustion engines or long layovers every few hundred miles to recharge EV batteries. Intent on advancing its renewable energy and climate change agenda, the California legislature recently enacted a new cap-and-trade law that will generate revenues for Tesla and the "bullet train to nowhere," by increasing hidden taxes on motor fuels, electricity and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000143-00002 consumer products -with the state's poor, minority and working class families again being hit hardest. State legislators are also close to passing a 3-billion EV subsid ro am, primarily to replace the $7,500 federal rebate that Tesla could soon lose. Electric vehicle buyers could soon receive up to $40,000 for buying Tesla's most expensive models! Coalbillionaire and California gubernatorial hopeful Tom Steyer vigorously supports the new subsidy We can also expect a battle royale over extending the federal EV subsidy beyond 200,000 vehicles - demonstrating once again that lobbyists are now far more important to bottom lines than engineers, especially when lobbyists can channel enormous contributions to politicians' reelection campaigns. As U.S. government agencies prepare to reassess climate change science, models and disaster predictions, it's a good time to reexamine claims made about all the utopian electric vehicle and renewable energy forecasts, expanding on the land and raw material issues I raised in a previous article. In his Forbes article on Batte y Derangement Syndrome, energy and technology analyst Mark P. Mills notes that Tesla is also getting $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies to build a huge $5-billion lithium battery factory in Nevada. Batteries, it's often claimed, can soon replace fossil fuels for backing up expensive, intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable wind and solar power. Mills explains why this is ... deranged. In an entire year, all the existing lithium battery factories in the world combined manufacture only enough capacity to store 100 billion Watt-hours (Wh) of electricity. But the USA alone uses 100 times this capacity: more than 10,000 billion Wh per day. Worldwide, humanity uses over 50,000 billion Wh daily. Focusing on solar power, Mills notes, that means storing electricity for 12 hours a day - to power homes and businesses around the globe for the 12 hours per day that photovoltaic systems will generate power on sunny days in the 100% solar world of the utopian future -would require 25,000 billion Watt-hours of battery power (ignoring future electricity needs to recharge electric vehicle batteries). Replacing the gasoline in the tanks of 1.4 billion vehicles worldwide with electric power would require another JOObillion Watt-hours. That brings total global demand to well over 125,000 billion Wh of storage. That means it would take 1,250 years of production from every existing lithium battery factory worldwide to meet this combined demand. Or we would have to build 1,250 times more factories. Or we could build batteries that are 10 to 100 times more powerful and efficient than what we have today. Says Mills, the constraints of real world physics on battery storage mean this latter option will not happen. In a world where we are also supposed to ban nuclear (and most hydroelectric) power, the very notion of eliminating the 80% of all global energy that comes from oil, natural gas and coal - replacing it with wind, solar and biofuel power - is fundamentally absurd. Can you SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000143-00003 imagine what would happen when the power goes off and on repeatedly while we are smelting iron, copper, aluminum, cobalt or lithium ores ... forging or casting metals into components ... or running complex fabrication and assembly lines? In the sustainability arena, has anyone calculated how much lithium, cobalt and other metals would be required to manufacture all those batteries? Where they would be mined - with nearly all the best U.S. metal prospects off limits to exploration and production, and radical environmentalists increasingly rallying to block mining projects overseas? The mines would have to be enormous, and operated by huge corporate consortiums. Will anti-corporate activists on our campuses suddenly have a change of heart? Will homes, neighborhoods and communities have the electrical service (200 amperes or more per home) to handle all the lighting, computing, entertainment, air conditioning, medical equipment and other requirements of modem living - AND the power required to charge all the predicted electric vehicles? What will it cost to upgrade neighborhood power grids, and home and commercial electrical systems? Lithium batteries and their component metals pose unique fire and explosion risks. What safeguards will be established to minimize those dangers, in battery factories, homes and public parking garages? Some factories and batteries will invariably be poorly built, handled or maintained. Some will invariably malfunction - causing potentially catastrophic explosions. The bigger the factory or battery, the bigger the cataclysm. Will we apply the same precautionary principles to them as more rabid environmentalists insist on applying to drilling, fracking, pipelines, refineries, factories, dams and nuclear power plants? What is the life expectancy of batteries, compared to engines in gasoline-powered cars? Two or three times shorter? What does it cost to replace battery packs compared to engines? Two to three times as much? What is the true overall cost of owning an EV? Four to six times higher than a gasoline car? How will we dispose of or recycle millions or billions of batteries and their dangerous, toxic components? Is the real goal of all this crony-corporatist wind, solar and battery enthusiasm - and antifossil fuel activism - to slash living standards in industrialized nations, and ensure that impoverished nations are able to improve their health and living conditions only marginally? We would do well to raise - and answer - these and other essential questions now, before we let activists, journalists, legislators and regulators con us into adopting more of their utopian, "planet-saving" ideas. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ~-----, and author of="-'-'-=::..:..=='-'-· Green power - Black death. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000143-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 8/27/2017 5:43:04 PM Pruitt on Red Team and endangerment finding FYI: "Pruitt told about 30 people attending a board meeting of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity yesterday morning that he's establishing a "specific process" to review climate science, the administration official said. [Bob] Murray [of Murray Energy] and two other people in the room interpreted Pruitt as saying he would challenge the endangerment finding." http://www.sunburynews.com/news/8485/epa-pruitt-wi11-launch-program-to-critique-c1imatesc1ence Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000144-00001 constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000144-00002 From: Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 1 :49:07 PM Nils-Axel Marner press release re sea level rise PRESS RELEASE.docx PRESS RELEASE.pdf Sent: Subject: Friends, Nils-Axel Marner prepared the attached news release in hopes of influencing coverage of the Ocean Conference starting today at United Nations Headquarter in New York. His bio and links to presentations at ICCCs can be found here: http://climateconferences.heartland.org/nils-axel-morner/ Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000145-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000145-00002 United Nations is holding a conference June 5-9 on r r It is hosted by the Governments of Sweden and Fiji But what can they say? & And with what authority? What they claim is not founder in evidence-based facts only in models and Paris-agreement-overenthusiasm -o-O-o- Ii 1111 1111 I I in the Fiji Islands nor in Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Kiribati and the Indian Ocean The New Fiji Sea Level Project* has just finished its main report. The records obtained in the field and radiocarbon dates obtained are condensed into a sea level curve of the Yasawa Islands for the last 500 years (Fig. 56). This curve also applies for most of the others islands of the Fiji nation. It is a new sea level curve of Fiji, recording the regional changes in eustatic sea level. It is composed of 6 elements: • • • • • • A +70 cm level in the 16th and 17th centuries A -100 cm low level in the 18th century A +30 cm peak in early 19th century Stable sea level condition during the last 150 years Coral death in the late 20 th century, due to a 10-20 cm sea level lowering or maybe due to severe coral bleaching at the 1998 ENSO event Quite stable sea level conditions in, at least, the last 15-20 years with forced coral growth into mini-atolls In the last 60 years coral reefs died due to a sea level lowering of about 10-20 cm (sign mark in Fig. 56) or due to severe coral bleaching at the 1998 ENSO event (red arrow in Fig. 56). After that, very stable sea level conditions must have prevailed in order to force corals at several sites to grow laterally into mini-atolls (Fig. 52). Our documentation (Fig. 56) implies that there is a total lack of signs indicating a present rise in sea level; on the contrary, our results indicate strict sea level stability. Therefore, it should free low-laying coasts and islands from the condemnation to become flooded in the near future. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000146-00001 ,---,----,---....----,----,.-----,---.-+100 cm ±0.0 -100 cm 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Fig. 56. The new sea level curve of the last 500 years in Fiji, with special reference to Yasawa Islands. Fig. 52. A mini-atoll with its sutface 40 cm below sea level at present low-tide level (above). The same mini-atoll at high-tide level (below) with red dot marking for C14date ''younger than 1955". The lateral growth is controlled by stable depth conditions with respect to the low-tide level (i.e. 40 cm). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000146-00002 United Nations is holding a conference June 5-9 on r u It is hosted by the Governments of Sweden and Fiji But what can they say? & And with what authority? What they claim is not founder in evidencebased facts only in models and Paris-agreement-overenthusiasm -o-O-o- Ii Ill I in the Fiji Islands nor in Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Kiribati and the Indian Ocean The New Fiji Sea Level Project has just finished its main report. The records obtained in the field and radiocarbon dates obtained are condensed into a sea level curve of the Yasawa Islands for the last 500 years (Fig. 56 ). This curve also applies for most of the others islands of the Fiji nation. It is a new sea level curve of Fiji, recording the reg ional changes in eustatic sea level. It is composed of 6 elements: • • • • • • A + 70 cm level in the 16th and 1yth centuries A-100 cm low level in the 18th century A +30 cm peak in early 19th century Stable sea level condition during the last 150 years Coral death in the late 20 th century, due to a 10 -20 cm sea level lowering or maybe due to severe coral bleaching at the 1998 ENSO event Quite stable sea level conditions in, at least, the last 15 -20 years with forced coral growth into mini-atolls In the last 60 years coral reefs died due to a sea level lowering of about 10-20 cm (sign mark in Fig. 56) or due to severe coral bleaching at the 1998 ENSO event (red arrow in Fig. 56) . After that, very stable sea level conditions must have prevailed in order to force corals at several sites to grow laterally into mini-atolls (Fig. 52). Our documentation (Fig. 56) implies that there is a total lack of signs indicating a present rise in sea level; on the contrary, our results indicate strict sea level stability. Therefore, it should free low-laying coasts and islands from the condemnation to become flooded in the near future. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_0000014 7-00001 ..---.----.----T----,-----.----..---.-+100 cm ±0.0 -100 cm 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Fig. 56. The new sea level curve of the last 500 years in Fiji, with special reference to Yasawa Islands. Fig. 52. A mini -atoll with its surface 40 cm below sea level at present low-tide level (above). The same mini-atoll at high-tide level (below) with red dot marking for C14date "younger than 1955". The lateral growth is controlled by stable depth conditions with respect to the low-tide level (i.e. 40 cm). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_0000014 7-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Fri 7/21/2017 9:09:29 PM Hansen: World's young face $535 trillion bill for climate Willie sends this: h s://www.earth-s st-d nam.nct/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017. df and the article below. Some strong rebuttals of this utter garbage would be appreciated, posted, published, and promoted ... Joe h ://climatcncwsnctwork.nct/22709-2/? latform=hootsuitc July 19, 2017, by Tim Radford SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000148-00001 New York, September 2014: Young people protest against climate change. Image: By Thomas Good via Wikimedia Commons The next generation will have to pay a $535 trillion bill to tackle climate change, relying on unproven and speculative technology. LONDON, 19 July, 2017 - One of the world's most famous climate scientists has just calculated the financial burden that tomorrow's young citizens will face to keep the globe at a habitable temperature and contain global warming and climate change a $535 trillion bill. And much of that will go on expensive technologies engineered to suck 1,000 billion metric tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air by the year 2100. Of course, if humans started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% a year right now, the end of the century challenge would be to take 150 billion tonnes from the atmosphere, and most of this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System Dynamics. The study, authored by researchers from the US, France, China, the United Kingdom and Australia, rests on two arguments. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000148-00002 Slow start One is that although the world's nations vowed in Paris in 2015 to contain global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2°C relative to the average global temperatures for most of the planet's history since the last Ice Age, concerted international action has been slow to start. One nation - the US - has already announced that it will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The other argument is that, even if humans do in the decades to come rise to the challenge, it could be too late: by then greenhouse gas concentrations could have reached a level in the atmosphere that would in the long run condemn the world to sea level rises of several metres, and a succession of economic and humanitarian disasters. "Continued high fossil fuel emissions would saddle young people with a massive, expensive cleanup problem and growing deleterious climate impacts, which should provide incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay," says James Hansen, of the Columbia University Earth Institute in the US, who led the study. Professor Hansen, as director of the US space agency Nasa's Institute for Space Studies, made global headlines in 1988, during a severe drought and heatwave on the North American continent, when he told a Washington senate committee: "It's time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here." legal testimony With that one sentence, he made climate science an enduring item on the political agenda. But the latest study is also part of a legal argument. It is in effect testimony in a lawsuit called Juliana et al vs the United States. This case began under the last US administration. However, the US president, Donald Trump, who has dismissed the evidence of climate change as a "hoax", has now been named in the case. Professor Hansen has argued that even the ambitions of the historic Paris Accord will not be enough to avert disaster and displacement for millions. The benchmark for geologically recent warming levels was set 115,000 years ago, during a period between two Ice Ages, known to geologists as the Eemian. "We show that a target of limiting global warming to no more than +2°C relative to preindustrial levels is not sufficient, as +2°C would be warmer than the Eemian period, when sea level reached plus 6-9 metres relative to today," Professor Hansen said. lower CO2 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000148-00003 At the heart of such arguments are calculations about imponderables that climatologists like to call the carbon budget and climate sensitivity. The first of these concerns the terrestrial and oceanic processes that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then absorb them, and the second is a calculation about what a change in carbon dioxide levels really means for average global temperatures. For most of human history, CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million. In the last two years they have reached 400 ppm, as a response to two centuries of fossil fuel combustion, and average global temperatures have risen by almost 1°C, with a record reading in 2016 of 1.3°C. Professor Hansen and his colleagues want to see these atmospheric CO2 levels lowered to 350 ppm, to bring global temperature rise down to no more than a rise of 1°C later this century. If the world's nations can co-operate to do that, then most of the hard work to remove the carbon dioxide surplus from the air could be left to the world's great forests. "It is apparent that governments are leaving this problem on the shoulders of young people. This will not be easy or inexpensive" However, if carbon emissions go on growing at 2% a year (and during this century, they have grown faster), then those who are children now would have to commit to a costly technological answer based on the belief that carbon dioxide can be captured, compressed and stored deep underground. Nobody knows how to do this on any significant scale. And if it could be done, it would be expensive: an estimated €500 trillion, or US$535 trillion. "It is apparent that governments are leaving this problem on the shoulders of young people. This will not be easy or inexpensive," says Hansen. "We wanted to quantify the burden that is being left for young people, to support not only the legal case against the US government, but also many other cases that can be brought against other governments." - Climate News Network SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000148-00004 From: Joseph Bast Fri 8/25/2017 5:35:37 PM Only 28% of Americans Think Climate Scientists Really Understand Climate Change Pages from Pew 2016 survey public don't trust one page sumrna y.pdf Sent: Subject: On Monday I sent out the email, below, highlighting one of Ballotpedia's "Scott Rasmussen's Number of the Day" emails. I thought it was reporting new survey research, but in fact it was reporting some numbers from an October 2016 Pew survey. Sorry about that. However, I dug into that survey a bit. .. I can't recall if we noticed it and reported it when it first came out,. Attached is a very cool one-page summary of the survey results. Be sure to print it out in color. Here are the greatest hits: * Only 27% say they believe "almost all climate scientists agree that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change." That's a plain statement about consensus, and it's great news for the truth. * Only 33% of respondents believe "climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is occurring," only 28% believe they understand the "causes of climate change" very well, and only 19% believe they understand "the best ways to address climate change" very well. This is all great news too, because even if the public believed there was a consensus ... which they don't ... they still wouldn't RESPECT the consensus because they realize climate scientists often don't know what they are talking about. * Why so little trust in climate scientists? Most folks getting this email can answer that, but the survey offers insight into that, too. Only 32% of respondents believe "climate scientists research findings are influence by the best available scientific evidence most of the time." If not the best available evidence, then what? 23% believe they are influenced by "concern for the best interests of the public," 36% by the "scientists' desire to advance their careers," 27% by "scientists' own political leanings," and 26% by "researchers' desire to help their industries." The loss of respect for scientists is one of the great casualties of the left's capture of universities in recent decades. It is likely to hurt the progress of science, perhaps for SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000149-00001 decades to come. The public realizes this has happened, or at least understands it is one of the reasons why "climate scientists" cannot be trusted to tell them the whole truth, despite all the propaganda trying to convince them otherwise. Joe From: Joseph Bast Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:38 PM Subject: Wow: Only 28% of Americans Think Climate Scientists Really Understand Climate Change ... and fewer than 20% of people responding to this survey believe climate scientists know how we should address the issue. The American people are way smarter than the media, Hollywood, most academics, and every Democrat in the country. I think I can hear Al Gore weeping ... Joe https://ballotpedia.org/Scott Rasmussen%27s Number of the Day sen's Number of the Da - asmussen's Number of the Day explores orthy topics at the intersection of culture, politics, Scott Rasmussen's Number of the Day By Scott Rasmussen SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000149-00002 August 21, 2017: Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Americans think that climate scientists understand the causes of global =..:....:.=;:.::;___:::..:....:..::=L::::. "very well." A.:........::::...::...:...........::...:::...=.:....::..:.... study found that only 19% believe that the climate scientists have a very good understanding of the best ways to address the issue. In general, the study found that Americans trust climate scientists more than politicians on the topic. Two-thirds (67%) believe scientists should play a major role in addressing policy issues on the matter. Most (56%) also believe that energy industry leaders (56%) and the general public (56%) should have a major say in such policy topics. The Pew study, however, also found that people believe there are differences of opinion among the climate scientists. Only 27% believe that there is a consensus on the issue and that just about all climate scientists believe human behavior is mostly responsible for global climate change. Another 35% think more than half hold this view. The survey also explored the degree of trust and confidence in those researching climate science. Thirty-six percent (36%) believe that, most of the time, scientists' research findings are motivated by a desire to advance their own careers. Only 32% say that they mostly rely on the best scientific evidence. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe that political views of the scientists generally influence their work. Liberal Democrats tend to express high levels of confidence in the climate scientists and their motives. Conservative Republicans are often quite skeptical. Most other Americans have mixed views. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000149-00003 6 PEW RESEARCHCENTER Trust in climate scientists is low among Republicans; considerably higher among liberal Democrats % of U.S. adults in each group who say the following about climate scientists Conservative Republican Climate scientists ... Mnd/lib Rep Mod/cons Oemncuat L ..........I Should have major role in policy decisions e 48%. I 8 Liberal Dem U.S. adults r········-.1 e 80-X. 67% Climate scientists understand very well ... Whether climate change is occurring 33 •68 11e eL'l. Causes of climate change Best ways to address climate cl1ange • e 8 •• e 28 54 19 36 Scientific consensus Almost all climate scientists agree that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change •• 16 27 • Information on causes of climate change Climate scientists can be trusted a lot to give full and accurate info on causes of climate change • 15 • •. i·, 39 870 Climate scientists' research findings are influenced by_ most of the time 9. 7. • • 16. • • ::-;oe Best available scientific evidence e1 [ Concern for the best interests of the public Scientists' desire to advance their careers Scientists' own political leanings 11 ee 1 • 32 55 23 .41 .. ,-~.~_; • • • 36 57 27 54 ,,., 34 /" ,J • Researchers' desire to help their industries 26 25 0% 10 20 30 '10 50 60 70 80 90 100 Note: Republicans m,d Democrats include i11dependentsand other non parlisans who 'lean· toward the parties. Respondents who do not lean toward il political party and othe1 responses on each question arc not shown. Source: Survey conducted May 10 June G, 7016. 'The I 'olitics of Climate· PEW RESEARCHCENTER www.pewresea rch .org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000150-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 6/5/2017 12:57:40 PM TRCS Letter to President Trump Posted to website The Right Climate Stuff, a group of retired NASA scientists and engineers, has posted an open Letter to The Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States (May 26, 2017) on its website at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/ along with its earlier (November 20, 2016) report, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRUMP TRANSITION TEAM INVESTIGATING ACTIONS TO TAKE AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) Nov 30, 2016 Harold Doiron. The letter and report can be found under the tabs TRCS Reports and also Economic and Political Considerations. For more information, contact Jim Peacock jim@seadiver.com, TRCS Research Team Member and Webmaster, and visit http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/ Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000151-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 7/5/2017 7:18:08 PM Justin Haskins dissects NRDC claims at the Blaze Nice piece: http://www. theblaze .com/news/2017 /07 /02/left-wing-cli mate-report-claims-tru mps-policies-will-kil I-millionsbut-facts-tell-a-different-story/ Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000152-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 6/2/2017 9:28:07 PM H. Sterling Burnett and Justin Haskins on the front page of Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/01/trumps-paris-climate-decision-should-becelebrated-by-democrats-republicans-and-independents.html Fox News 6/2/17 Trump's Paris Climate Decision Should be Celebrated by Democrats, Republicans and Independents By: H. Sterling Burnett and Justin Haskins, the Heartland Institute When the Paris climate agreement was signed in April 2016, it was touted by the Obama administration and a vast array of its climate-alarmist proponents as a supreme victory for the global environmental movement. Now, a little more than a year later, the agreement that had effectively been in the works for nearly a decade in one form or another is dead, and with it, much of President Barack Obama's climate-change legacy. Americans of every stripe should celebrate the Paris agreement's demise, for it represents a stunning victory for taxpayers and middle- and lower-income families and the elevation of science over irrational fears about the future of Earth's climate. The Paris climate agreement required the United States to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. To meet this target, the United States would have had to reduce its emissions by such a radical extent that virtually every aspect of American life would have been negatively impacted. Mandates would have forced the closure of many of the least-expensive power plants nationwide, raising energy prices at a time of tepid economic growth and sky-high deficits. Manufacturers, domestic energy producers, and countless related industries would have been driven out of business or forced to significantly scale back their operations while taxpayer-subsidized, inefficient, high-cost renewable-energy industries thrived-all at the expense of everyday Americans. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000153-00001 Under the Paris agreement, major economic and geopolitical competitors-including China, India, and Russia-would have been allowed to grow their low-cost carbon dioxide emissions while the United States would have been forced to implement draconian cuts, making their economies comparatively more attractive to corporations looking to slash costs and significantly reducing Americans' ability to compete in an increasingly global marketplace. Despite the Paris agreement's immense costs, the treaty's proponents insist it is a necessary step forward in the alleged battle against human-caused climate change. But even the U.N. Environment Programme, a noted climate alarmist agency, admitted on its own website the treaty would deliver no meaningful environmental improvements. According to the United Nations' post-Paris analysis, if all the parties to the agreement were to meet their promised emissions goals, the Paris treaty would result in less than half the greenhouse gas cuts required to halt temperatures at an upper limit of 2 degrees Celsius. Even if one believes human greenhouse gas emissions are driving dangerous climate change-and we think the best science shows they aren't-the Paris agreement would not have prevented one iota of rising temperatures, sea levels, or instances of extreme weather. Climate alarmists, including some within the White House, have told the president any rollback of the Paris agreement would have detrimental political consequences for the president. Thankfully, Trump was not swayed by these empty threats. There was absolutely no political upside for Trump to reverse course on his campaign promise to exit the Paris agreement. Had he done so, left-wing environmentalists would not have suddenly fallen in love with Trump, and the "swamp" Republican establishment wouldn't have warmly embraced him either. However, what would have unquestionably occurred had Trump kept the Paris treaty alive is there would have been a tidal wave of criticism from climate skeptics and working class Americans, turning some of the president's closest allies into his fieriest critics. By rejecting climate alarmists' sky-is-falling political fear mongering, Trump adamantly declared he isn't interested in being bullied by the anti-science, redistributionist zealots on the left. Instead, Trump is standing alongside entrepreneurs, business owners, and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000153-00002 working American families, many of whom voted for Trump in November, in declaring with one voice that U.S. climate and energy policies ought to put America first. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000153-00003 From: Joseph Bast Fri 8/25/2017 5:08:27 PM Subsistance, not sea level rise, responsible for Chesapeake Bay water intrusion Chesapeake Bay Water Intrusion, 8-17.pdf Sent: Subject: By our friend, Roger Bezdek: Abstract Sea level rise due to climate change is a contentious issue with profound geographic and economic implications. One region in the USA identified as being particularly susceptible to seal level rise is the Chesapeake Bay region, and it has been estimated that by the end of the century Norfolk, Virginia could experience sea level rise of 0.75 meters to more than 2.1 meters. Water intrusion is a serious problem in much of the Chesapeake Bay region. The question addressed here is whether this water intrusion is the result of climate-induced seal level rise or is being caused by other factors. Our findings indicate that the water intrusion problems in the region are due not to "sea level rise", but primarily to land subsidence due to groundwater depletion and, to a lesser extent, subsidence from glacial isostatic adjustment. We conclude that water intrusion will thus continue even if sea levels decline. These findings are critical because the water intrusion problems in the Chesapeake Bay-and elsewhere- cannot be successfully solved unless their causes are correctly identified and appropriate remedies are devised. For the Chesapeake Bay region, the required remedy is the reversal of groundwater withdrawal rates, which has been used successfully elsewhere in the USA and other nations to solve water intrusion problems. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000154-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000154-00002 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 2017, 5, 252-263 Scientific Research Publishing http://www.scirp.org/journa 1/gep ISSN Online: 2327-4344 ISSN Print: 2327-4336 Water Intrusion in the Chesapeake Bay Region: Is It Caused by Climate-Induced Sea Level Rise? Roger H. Bezdek Management Information Services, Inc., Wa;hington, D.C., USA Email: bezdek@misi-net.com How to cite this paper: Bezdek, R.H. (2017) Water Intrusion in the Chesapeake Bay Region: Is It Caused by Climate-Induced Abstract ~ level rise due to climate change is a contentious issue with profound geo- graphic and economic implications. One region in the USA identified as being particularly susceptible to seal level rise is the Chesapeake Bay region, and it has been estimated that by the end of the century Norfolk, Virginia could experience sea level rise of 0.75 meters to more than 2.1 meters. Water intrusion Received: March 21, 2017 Accepted: August 19, 2017 is a serious problem in much of the ChesapeakeBay region. The question ad- Published: August 22, 2017 dressed here is whether this water intrusion is the result of climate-induced Copyright © 2017 by author and seal level rise or is being caused by other factors. Our findings indicate that Scientific ResearchPublishing Inc. the water intrusion problems in the region are due not to "sea level rise", but This work is licensed under the Creative primarily to land subsidence due to groundwater depletion and, to a lesser Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). extent, subsidence from glacial isostatic adjustment. We conclude that water http :Ilcreativecemmens.erg/ Iicenseslbyl4.01 intrusion will thus continue even if sea levels decline. These findings are criti- L],iJ,11JZ~4 cal because the water intrusion problems in the Chesapeake Bay-and else- where----cannot be successfully solved unless their causesare correctly identified and appropriate remedies are devised. For the ChesapeakeBay region, the required remedy is the reversal of groundwater withdrawal rates, which has been used successfully elsewhere in the USA and other nations to solve water intrusion problems. Keywords ~ Level Rise, Climate Change, Global Warming, Water Intrusion, ChesapeakeBay, Climate Change Mitigation 1. Introduction Numerous studies contend that there are serious dangers and risks to many U.S. regions from anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and the Southeast region is identified as likely to be impacted the most severely. For example, recent reports DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 Aug. 22, 2017 252 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00001 R.H.Bezdek warned that sea level rise seriously threatens the Southeast's coastal infrastructure, and contended that there was a significant risk to this region from sea level rise [1]. Thus, "On our current path, by mid-rentury, mean sea level at Norfolk, Virginia-home to the USA's largest naval base-will likely rise between 0.33 meters and 0.52 meters, and will rise 0.75 meters to 1.34 meters by the end of rentury. However, there isa 1-in-100 chanre that Norfolk could seesea level rise of more than 2.2 meters by the end of the rentury." [2] This is illustrated in Figure 1. However, these were projected values with a large range of unrertainties and depended strongly on what climate-model outputs were employed for the projection. Here we examine this issue in detail, and we assesswhether the water intrusion problems in the Norfolk, Virginia region are the result of AGW-indured seal level rise or are being caused by other factors. 2. Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise Land subsidenre is the sinking or lowering of the land surfare, and most land subsidenre in the U.S. is caused by human activities [3]. Two well-studied cases of land subsidenre are in the Houston-Galveston, Texas,area and the Santa Clara Valley, Galifornia. Land sank by as much as three meters over 50 years because of intensive groundwater withdrawals in the two areas, as well as petroleum extraction in Texas, resulting in increasedcoastal flooding [4]. Regional authorities were established in the two areas to manage water use and land subsidenre. The regional authorities set up monitoring networks and enlisted scientists to study Median 1-in-100 Chance 1-in-200 Chance Figure 1. Mean 563 level rise in Norfolk by 2100. (Source: Risky Business.) DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 253 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00002 R.H. Bezdek the problem Ultimately, the communities adopted new water-management practices to prevent land subsidenre, including relocating groundwater withdrawals away from the coast, substituting surfare water [5] for groundwater supplies, and increasing aquifer recharge. In the 83nta Clara Valley, subsidenre has mostly been stopped and, in the Houston-Galveston area, subsidenre has been slowed, particularly along vulnerable shorelines [3]. Rates and locations of land subsidenre change over time, so accurate measurements and predictive tools are needed to improve understanding of land subsidenre. Although rates of land subsidenre are not as high on the Atlantic Coast as they have been in the Houston-Galveston area or the 83nta Clara Valley, land subsidenre is important because of the low-lying topography and susreptibility to sea-level rise in the southern Chesapeake Bay region. Land subsidenre can increase flooding, alter wetland and coastal ecosystems, and damage infrastructure and historical sites. Because land subsidenre contributes to relative sea-level rise in the region, it is important to understand why, where, and how fast it is occurring, now and in the future. Land subsidenre is causing most of the relative "sea-level rise" that has been measured in the Chesapeake Bay. However, tidal-station measurements of sea levels do not distinguish between water that is rising and land that is sinking-the combined elevation changes are termed "relative sea-level rise". Land subsidenre is the sinking or lowering of the land surfare and it increases the risk of coastal flooding and contributes to water intrusion and shoreline retreat-Figure 2. As relative sea levels rise, shore! ines retreat and the magnitude and frequency of near-shore coastal flooding increase. Although land subsidenre can be slow, its effects accumulate over time. This has been an expensive problem in the Houston-Galveston area and the 83nta Clara Valley [5] and contributes to current flooding problems in the Chesapeake Bay region. Analysts found that between 59,000 and 176,000 residents living near the shores of the Chesapeake Bay could be either permanently inundated or regularly flooded by 2100 [6]. Damage to personal property was estimated to be $9 billion to $26 billion, and 120,000 acres of ecologically valuable land could be inundated or regularly flooded, under these same as.5umptions. However, the key question is whether AGW-indured sea level rise is the causal factor. Future shoreline with sea-level rise and land subsidence Future shoreline with sea-level rise only 5l ·c: Figure 2. Shoreline retreat caused by a combination of 563-level rise and land subsidence. (Source: USGS.) DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 254 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00003 R.H.Bezdek Land subsidence can also increase flooding in areas away from the coast. Low-lying areas, such as the Blackwater River Basin in Virginia can be subjoct to increased flooding as the land sinks. Locations along the Blackwater River in the city of Franklin and the countiES of Isle of Wight and Southampton have experienced large floods in recsnt years [3]. Land subsidence may be altering the topographic gradient that drivESthe flow of the river and contributing to the flooding. 3. Causes of Land Subsidence in the Chesapeake Bay Region It is important to understand the cauSESof land subsidence so that it can be more effectively managed. Most land subsidence in the U.S. is caused by human activities, with groundwater withdrawals rESponsible for about 80 percent of land subsidence in the U.S. [7]. GauSESof subsidence that are most relevant to the Chesapeake Bay region include aquifer-system compaction caused by groundwater withdrawals and glacial isostaticadjustment. When groundwater is pumped from an aquifer system, prESSuredecreaSES. The prESSurechange is reflected by water levels in wells, with water levels decreasing as aquifer-system prESSuredecreaSES.This is happening over most of the ChesapeakeBay region, with the greatest water-level decreaSES seen near the pumping centers of Franklin and WESt Point, Virginia-Figure 3. As water le- vels decrease, the aquifer system compacts, causing the land surface above to subside. Water levels have decreasedover the entire Virginia Coastal Plain in the Potomac aquifer, which is the deepestand thickESt aquifer in the southern Chesapeake Bay region and supplies about 75 percent of groundwater withdrawn from the Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system [8]. The amount of aquifer-system compaction is determined by three factors: Water-level decline, sediment comprESSibility, and sediment thickness. If any of thESethree factors increase in magnitude, then the amount of aquifer-system compaction and land subsidence increaSES.Becauseall three of thESefactors vary spatially across the southern Chesapeake Bay region, rates of land subsidence caused by aquifer-system compaction also vary spatially across the region. The Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system consists of many stacked layers of sand and clay. Although groundwater is withdrawn primarily from the aquifers (sandy layers), most compaction occurs in confining units and clay lenSES,the relatively impermeable layers sandwiched between and within the aquifers [9]. The compression of clay layers is mostly non-recoverable, meaning that, if groundwater levels later recover and increase, then the aquifer system dOESnot expand to its previous volume and the land surface dOESnot rise to its previous elevations [7]. It has been estimated that 95 percent of the water removed from storage in the Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system between 1891 and 1980 was derived from the confining layers [10]. The timing of aquifer-system compaction is also important. Compaction can continue for many years or decadESafter groundwater levels decline. When groundwater is pumped from an aquifer, prESSuredecreaSESin the aquifer. The DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 255 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00004 R.H. Bezdek 7T 77°30' 76°30' 76° 37°30' Groundwater leveldecrease, i1,meters 16 36°30' Map made from U.S. Geological Survey and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries data Virginia State plane projection Virginia south Federeal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)4502 North American Datum 1983(NAD83) 0 0 20 MILES 10 20 KILOMETER EXPLANATION -10- Line of equal groundwater level decline (predevelopment to 2008)-Shows change in elevation. Contour interval is 5 meters Groundwater withdrawal center • U.S. Geological Survey extensometer station Figure 3. Chesapeake Baygroundwater water-level decreases, 1900to2008. (Source: USGS.) pres.5uredecreasethen slowly propagate; into clay layersthat are adjacent to or within the aquifer, and as long as pres.5urecontinues to decreasein the clay layers, compaction continue;. DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 256 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00005 R.H.Bezdek The layered sediments of the Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system range in grain size from very fine (silts and clays) to coarse (sand and shell fragments) [10]. Confining layers outside the meteor impact crater occupy about 16 percent of the total aquifer-system thickness, an average of 100 m out of the total average thickness of 619 m [8]. Clay layers overlying and within the Potomac aquifer are compressing as aquifer pressure decreasesmigrate vertically and laterally from pumping wells [11 ]. Crystalline bedrock underlie; the layered sediments of the Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system, but the bedrock is not solid and unyielding but actually flexe; and move; in re;ponse to stress. Bedrock in the mid-Atlantic region is moving slowly downward in re;ponse to melting of the Laurentide ice sheet that covered Ganada and the northern U.S. during the last ice age [12]. When the ice sheet still existed, the weight of the ire pushed the underlying Earth's crust downward and, in response, areas away from the ire sheet were forred upward (called glacial forebulge). The southern Chesapeake Bay region is in the glacial forebulge area and was forced upward by the Laurentide ice sheet. The ice sheet started melting about 18,000 years ago and took many thousands of years to disappear entirely. As the ire melted and its weight was removed, glacial forebulge areas, which previously had been forced upward, began sinking and continue to sink. This movement of the Earth's crust in response to ire loading or melting is called glacial isostatic adjustment. Data from GPS measurements and carbon dating of marsh sediments indicate that regional land subsidence in response to glacial isostatic adjustment in the ChesapeakeBay region may have a current rate of about 1 mm/yr [13]. There are other cause; of land subsidenre, but there is currently little or no evidence that these other cause; are important to regional subsidence proresse; in the southern Chesapeake Bay region. These include bedrock dis.5olution, drainage and degradation of organic soils, settling offill and disturbed soils [14], and volcanic disturbance; and tectonic motion related to continental crust movements. Settling of impact crater sediments associated with the Chesapeake Bay meteor crater is an unlikely cause of current land subsidence in the region becausethe meteor struck about 35 million years ago [15]. The passageof time since the meteor impact has been so great that, even if it was conservatively assumed that subsidence rate; had stayed constant during the past 1 million years rather than decreasing, a rate of 1 mm/yr. would equate to 1 kilometer of subsidence, which is not compatible with current understanding of regional geology [16]. 4. Land Subsidence and Sea-Level Rise in the Chesapeake Bay Region Land subsidenre has been known and observed in the southern ChesapeakeBay region for many decadesand is a factor that must be considered by urban planners and natural resource managers. Land subsidenre in the ChesapeakeBay reDOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 257 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00006 R.H. Bezdek gion was first documented over four decadesago by Holdahl and Morrison who reported results of geodetic surveys completed between 1940 and 1971 and found land surfaces across the region were sinking at an average rate of 2.8 mm/yr. with rates ranging from 1.1 to 4.8 mm/yr [ 17]. The two areaswhere subsidence rates were the most rapid roughly coincide with groundwater pumping centers at Franklin and West Point. Measurements of land subsidence are currently made at Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) in the region. The National Geodetic Survey has computed velocities for three of these stations between 2006 and 2011 and found an average subsidence rate of 3.1 mm/yr [18]. Aquifer-system compaction was measured with extensometers at two locations in the region, at Franklin from 1979 to 1995 and at Suffolk from 1982 to 1995 [19]. The extensometers showed 24.2 mm of total compaction at Franklin from 1979 through 1995 (1.5 mm/yr.) and 50.2 mm of total compaction at Suffolk from 1982 through 1995 (3.7 mm/yr.). Ratesof compaction were correlated to groundwater-level decreasesand to the aggregate thickness of compressible sediments at each location. The total thickness of compressible fine-grained sediments is 130.8 mat Suffolk and 62.7 mat Franklin. Water levels in the Potomac aquifer during the period of compaction measurement decreased more at Suffolk than at Franklin, about 5 m versus about 2 m. Aquifer-system compaction has not been measured at any other locations in the ChesapeakeBay region but it likely affects most of the region becauselarge water-level decreasesin the aquifer system are widespread. Relative sea-level rise measured at four National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal stations averaged 3.9 mm/yr. from about 1950 through 2006. At the ~lls Point tidal station in Norfolk, Virginia, rising sea le- vels have been recordedsince 1927:&:la levelat ~el Is Point roseat an averagerate of 4.4 mm/yr. from 1927 to 2006, with a 95 percent confidence interval of ±0.27 mm/yr [20]. In comparison, global average sea levels have been rising at about 1.8 mm/yr. Although rates of absolute sea-level rise (rise due just to increasesin ocean volume) can vary substantially from one location to another and change over time [21], the global average rate of 1.8 mm/yr. from 1961 to 2003 is a widely accepted global benchmark rate [22]. The difference between the average sea-level rise computed from the four NOAA tidal stations in the study area (3.9 mm/yr.) and the benchmark global rate (1.8 mm/yr.) is 2.1 mm/yr., which is an estimate of the average rate of land subsidenceat the four NOAA stations. However, as noted, local regional sea level rise can differ significantly from the global mean sea level rise [23]. Chesapeake Bay tide-gage records and paleo-sea-level records from tidal marshes and the bay's main stem indicate that rates of sea-level rise in Chesapeake Bay range from about 3.2 to 4.7 mm/yr., depending on the location and period of record for each tide gage.These rates exceed the global averagebecausethe land is subsiding. Further, the departure of sea-level trends in ChesapeakeBay from the global mean for the last century may not persist. Thus, rates measured at tide gages do not necessarily reflect DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 258 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00007 R.H.Bezdek pre-20th century regional patterns, nor can they be necessarily expected to persist into the future [24]. Nevertheless, the estimates used here are currently the best available and are supported by the research literature [25]. Thus, the difference between average subsidence rate of about 3.1 mm/yr and the average estimated sea-level rise computed in the Chesapeake Bay area of about 3.9 mm/yr. is 0.8 mm/year. These data indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for most of the relative sea-level rise measured in the Chesapeake Bay region over the past half-rentury. 5. Links between Groundwater Withdrawals and Land Subsidence Aquifer-system compaction is responsible for most land subsidence in the region, based on average measured land subsidence rates of about 2.8 mm/yr. and measured average compaction rates of 2.6 mm/yr. The aquifer-system compaction is caused by high groundwater withdrawal rates that have lowered water levels [26]. As shown in Figure 4, groundwater withdrawal rates in the region increased sharply in the 20th century as modern pumping technology was widely adopted [7]. The many decades of increasing groundwater withdrawals have caused groundwater levels to decrease across the Chesapeake Bay region. Water levels are expected to continue decreasing for many years, even if pumping rates do not increase further, becauseof delay caused by compressibility of the aquifer system [8]. An important component of relative sea-level rise, land subsidence, could be prevented or reduced in the future if groundwater pumping strategies were changed [27]. Future landsubsidencecaused by aquifer-system compaction can be 140 >, ro "O 120 ai 0.. (/) C: _Q "iii 100 OJ C: .Q .E 80 .!: Cl) "iii 3: ~ 60 "O :E "§: .._ * 40 3: "O C: ::, e 20 C) 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Figure 4. Groundwater withdrawal rates from Virginia coastal plain aquifers, 1900 to 2008. (Source: USGS.) DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 259 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00008 R.H. Bezdek reduced or stopped by changing water-use practices. Because aquifer-system compaction is the primary cause of land subsidence in the Chesapeake Bay region, reducing compaction can reduce land subsidence and associated flood risks [28]. In the Houston-Galveston area and the 83nta Clara Valley, resource managers have successfully decreased land subsidence by moving groundwater pumping away from the coast, reducing groundwater withdrawal rates, and increasing aquifer recharge [29]. Similar findings have been reported for the 83n Joaquin Valley, California [30], coastal Louisiana [31], the Yellow River delta, China [32], and the central Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta, Bangladesh [33]. The small contribution to land subsidence from glacial isostatic adjustment in the Chesapeake Bay region-perhaps about 1 mm/yr [33}---cannot be prevented. This natural glacial isostatic adjustment of the Earth's crust will diminish with time, but at a glacial or geologic pace. 6. Conclusions ~ level rise due to climate change is a contentious issue with profound geo- graphic and economic implications, and there is little doubt that water intrusion is a serious problem in much of the Chesapeake Bay region. However, the critical question is whether this water intrusion is the result of climate-induced sea level rise or is being caused by other factors. Our findings indicate that the water intrusion problems in the region are due not to "sea level rise", but, rather, primarily to land subsidence due to groundwater depletion and, to a lesser extent, subsidence from glacial isostatic adjustment. We conclude that water intrusion may thuscontinueeven if sea levels actually decline. The difference is critical, and the solutions required to address the problem are entirely different. If the cause of the problem is primarily land subsidence-as it is in Norfolk and the Chesapeake Bay region, then water intrusion will continue irrespective of sea level changes. For the Chesapeake Bay region, the required remedy is the reversal of groundwater withdrawal rates, which has been used successfully elsewhere in the USA to solve water intrusion problems-including in the Houston-Galveston, Texas area, and the 83nta Clara Valley in California. Future land subsidence caused by aquifer-system compaction in the Chesapeake Bay region can be reduced or stopped by changing water-use practices. Our findings are significant because the water intrusion problems in the Chesapeake Bay-or elsewhere-cannot be successfully resolved unless their causesare correctly identified and appropriate remedies are devised. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Willie Soon, Fred Singer, and several anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of th is manuscript. References [1] DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 Van Houtven, S.G., Depro, B., Lapidus, D., Allpress, J. and Lord, B. (2016) Costs of 260 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_ 001389_00000155-00009 R.H.Bezdek Doing Nothing: Economic Consequences of Not Adapting to Sea Level Rise in the Hampton Roads Region. Report Prepared for the Virginia Coa;tal Policy Center College of William & Mary Law School, RTI Project Number0215176.000.001. [2] Rhodium Group (2014) Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States, Report Prepared for the Risky Business Project. In This Report, Sea-Level Rise Was Measured in Feet. Here We Converted the Measurements to Meters to Be Consistent with Other Estimates. [3] Galloway, D.L., Jones, D.R. and lngebritsen, S.E. (1999) Land Subsidence in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182. [4] Bawden, G.W., Johnson, M.R., Kasmarek, M.C., Brandt, J. and Middleton, C.S. (2012) Investigation of Land Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region of Texas by Using the Global Positioning System and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, 1993-2000. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 20125211. [5] McFarlane, B.J. (2012) Climate Change in Hampton Roads. Phase 111----ses Level Rise in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Hampton Roads Planning District Commision Report PEP12-06, Chesapeake. [6] Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002) Flood lnsuranceStudy of Franklin, Virginia, Community. [7] Konikow, LF. and Neuzil, C.E. (2007) A Method to Estimate Groundwater Depletion from Confining Layers. Water Resources Research,43. https:/ /doi .org/10.1029/2006WR005597 [8] Pope, J.P. and Burbey, T J. (2004) Multiple-Aquifer Characterization from Single Borehole Extensometer Records. Ground Water, 42, 45-58. https:/ /doi.org/10.1111 /j.1745 -6584.2004.tb02449.x [9] Pope, J.P. (2002) Characterization and Modeling of Land Subsidence Due to Groundwater Withdrawals from the Confined Aquifers of the Virginia Coa;tal Plain. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, M.S. Thesis. [10] McFarland, E.R. and Bruce, T.S. (2006) The Virginia Coa;tal Plain Hydrogeologic Framework. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1731. [11] Sella, G.F., Stein, S., Dixon, T.H., Craymer, M., James, T.S., Mazzotti, S. and Dokka, R.K. (2007) Observation of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in "Stable" North America with GPS. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L02306. [12] Engelhari S.E. and Horton, B.P. (2012) Holocene Sea Level Database for the Atlantic Coa;t of the United States. Quaternary Science Reviews, 54, 12-25. [13] Heywood, C.E. and Pope, J.P. (2009) Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Coa;tal Plain Aquifer System of Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5039. [14] Powars, D.S. and Bruce, T.S. (1999) The Effects of the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater on the Geological Framework and Correlation of Hydrogeologic Units of the Lower York-J3mes Peninsula. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1612. [15] Powars, D.S. and Bruce, T.S. (1999) The Effects of the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crateron the Geological Framework and Correlation of Hydrogeologic Units of the Lower York-J3mesPeninsula. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1612. [16] Holdahl, S.R. and Morrison, NL (1974) Regional Investigations of Vertical Crustal Movements in the U.S., Using Precise Relevelingsand Mareograph Data. Tectonophysics, 23, 373-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040'1951( 4) 73-0 [17] Snay, RA and Soler, T. (2008) Continuously Operating Referencestation (CORS)- DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 261 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_001389_00000155-00010 R.H. Bezdek History, Applications, and Future Enhancements. Journal of Surveying Engineering, 134, 95-104. [18] National Geodetic Survey (2013) IGS08 Geodetic CORS Positional Antennae Reference Point (ARP) [GRS80 Ellipsoid] Computed Velocities. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [19] Zervas, C. (2009) Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854-2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 053. [20] S311enger,A.H., Doran, K.S. and Howd, P.A. (2012) Hotspot of Accelerated Sea-Level Rise on the Atlantic Coast of North America. Nature Climate Change, 2, 884-888. http ://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1597 [21] Bindoff, N.L., et al. (2007) Observations-Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. Chapter 5 of Climate Change- The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, New York, 385-432. [22] Church, J.A., Clark, P.U., Cazenave, A., Gregory, J.M., Jevrejeva, S., Levermann, A., Merrifield, M.A., Milne, G.A., Nerem, R.S., Nunn, P.O., Payne, AJ., Pfeffer, W.T., Stammer, D. and Unnikrishnan, A.S. (2013) Sea Level Change. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. and Midgley, P.M., Eds., Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the I ntergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. [23] Cronin, T.M. (2013)Sea-Level Riseand ChesapeakeBay. U.S. Geological Survey. [24] Pope, J.P. and Burbey, T J. (2004) Multiple-Aquifer Characterization from Single Borehole Extensometer Records. Ground Water, 42, 45-58. https:/ /doi.org/10.1111 /j.1745 -6584.2004.ib02449.x [25] Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. and Midgley, P.M. (2013) Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York. [26] Mace, R.E. (2011) Peer Review of Virginia's Groundwater Management Program. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Final Report. [27] Eggleston, J. and Pope, J. (2013) Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern ChesapeakeBay Region. Report No. 1392, US Geological Survey. [28] Eggleston, J. and Pope, J. (2013) Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern ChesapeakeBay Region. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1392. [29] Galloway, D. and Riley, F.S. (1999) S3n Joaquin Valley: California Largest Human Alteration of the Earth's Surface. Land Subsidence in the United States, U.S. Geological Survey Circular, 1182, 23-34. [30] Dokka, R.K. (2006) Modern-Day Tectonic Subsidence in Coastal Louisiana. Geology, 34, 281-284. https://doi.org/10.1130/G22264.1 [31] Higgins, S., Overeem, I., Tanaka, A. and Syvitski,J.P.M. (2013) Land Subsidence at Aquaculture Facilities in the Yellow River Delta, China. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 3898-3902. https:/ /doi .org/10.1002/grl.50758 [32] Hanebuth, T.J.J., Kudrass, H.R., Linstadter, J., Islam, B. and Zander, A.M. (2013) Rapid Coastal Subsidence in the Central Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta (Bangladesh) since the 17th Century Deduced From Submerged S3ltproducing Kilns. Geology, 41, 987-990. https:/ /doi.org/10.1130/G34646.1 DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 262 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED_001389_00000155-00011 R.H.Bezdek [33] Engelhari S.E., Horton, B.P., Douglas, B.C., Peltier, W.R. and Tbrnqvist, T.E. (2009) Spatial Variability of Late Holocene and 20th Century Sea-Level Rise along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Geology, 37, 1115-1118. •:( Scientific Research Publishing Submit or recommend next manuscript to SCIRP and we will provide best service for you: Accepting pre-submission inquiries through Email, Facebook, Linkedln, Twitter, etc. A wide selection of journals(inclusiveof Providing 24-hour high-quality service 9subjects,more than 200 journals) User-friendly onlinesubmission system Fair and swift peer-review system Efficient typesetting and proofreading procedure Display of the result of downloads and visits, as well as the number of cited articles Maximum dissemination of your resesrch work Submit your manuscript at: http:/ Ip pe Or contact gep§pcirp.org DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.58020 263 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 bmission .scirp.org/ Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection ED _001389_00000155-00012 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 7/5/2017 4:46:24 PM Response to MIT President: Paris Exit Scientifically Sound (Part I) - Master Resource From Willie Soon: Please help spread this refined version to all especially anyone that has MIT root or affiliation https ://www. masterresou rce. org/cl imate-science/mit-president-exit-paris-i/ Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000156-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 8/24/2017 10:45:16 PM Heartland Institute Experts React to Department of Energy Report on Electricity Grid The following press release is scheduled to go tomorrow out to 16,161 Environment, Energy, and Political press and media contacts. THE E RTL ND INSTITUTE HEARTLAND.ORG Heartland Institute Experts React to Department of Energy Report on Electricity Grid The Department of Energy (DOE) this week released a report titled "Staff Report to the Secreta on Elcctrici Markets and Reliabili ." The report outlines the current state of the nation's electricity grid and power plant infrastructure, including the fact natural-gas plants have replaced coal as the leading source of power generation for America's electricity grid. The report also recommends policy changes, including easing and speeding up permitting requirements for coal and nuclear plants, and scaling back federal tax credits for solar and wind energy. The following statements from energy policy experts at The Heartland [nstitute - a free-market think tank- may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at mcdia@hcartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 847/445-7554. "This report is, in one word, 'disappointing.' However, I'm not surprised it whitewashes the massive crush of over-regulations foisted on the coal industry for the past eight years. Many of these very same bureaucrats were charged with implementing President Barack Obama's promise to 'bankrupt the coal industry.' Thank goodness President Donald Trump and Energy Sec. Rick Perry are working to reverse this Obama-era threat to electricity production, the hundreds of millions of Americans whose daily lives depend on it, and the coal industry that keeps much of it fueled." Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D. President The Heartland Institute thuclskamp@hcartland.org 312/377-4000 Dr. Huelskamp represented Kansas' J51 District in the House of Representatives from 2011 to 2017. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000157-00001 "The Department of Energy study takes a very sanguine view of U.S. electrical reliability while underplaying the pernicious impact the Obama administration's anti-carbon rules had on the decisions of utilities to close coal-fired plants. With respect to the study's conclusions, I am sure the lawyers at DOE and in the White House advised what they did because there is no apparent and immediate crisis, so a blanket moratorium on further coal plant closures is the wrong approach. But that only defers the issue. "The reality is coal plants are closing because they are aging in the face of federal and state policies that favor renewable energy over renovated coal plants. With that, new natural-gas plants are becoming the default option to support renewables, a situation that operates under the assumption natural gas will be inexpensive and plentiful forever. The report's suggested renewable fuel policies are based completely on erroneous concerns about carbon dioxide - the result of the decision made by the media and the Obama administration to demonize fossil fuels and laud unreliable wind and solar power." Fred Palmer Senior Fellow, Energy Policy The Heartland Institute fpalmer@heartland.org 312/377-4000 "The Department of Energy study makes clear government subsidies and mandates keep the renewable energy industry profitable instead of it dying a quick death in the marketplace, which has caused an artificial downturn in coal and nuclear power. Although coal and nuclear may not thrive even if state governments and the feds were to remove their heavy thumbs from the renewable side of the scale, coal and nuclear would certainly be able to compete in the marketplace with an ascendant natural-gas industry that has become their primary competitor. I applaud DOE's recommendations to try to return the playing field somewhere to the vicinity of level." Tim Benson Policy Analyst The Heartland Institute tbenson@hcartland.org 312/377-4000 "This report confirms three things: First, some coal fired-power plant retirements are due to market conditions, including the wider adoption of low-cost natural gas - but some were due to forced adoption of variable renewable energy mandates and subsidies. The latter made moreflexible natural-gas plants better sources of baseload power. Second, some coal-fired power plants have been shuttered prematurely due to regulatory changes, rather than market conditions. Research shows the shuttering was not justified on the grounds of protecting human health or creating significant and economical environmental benefits. Third, renewable energy sources are adding additional stresses and costs to the electric grid - and the more that is added, the more SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000157-00002 these costs will rise. "In the end, had highly subsidized and expensive wind and solar electric power not been forced onto the markets through various state mandates, many coal-fired power plants recently shuttered would still be operating. That would mean consumers would be paying less than they currently are for energy and energy-dependent goods and services." H. Sterling Burnett Research Fellow, Environment & Energy Policy The Heartland Institute Managing Editor, Environme77l& Chmate News hbumett@heartl and. org 214/909-2368 The Heartland [nstitute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000157-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 6/2/2017 7:05:39 PM Peduto to Trump: Pittsburgh will move to 100% Clean Energy A news release from the Sierra Club ... This came up on my cellphone as "Pittsburgh will move ... " I was hoping it would end, " ... to France." Good riddance to them, I say! Just leave behind your football franchise, please. I hear they are pretty good. Joe From: Shane Levy, Sierra Club [mailto:shane.levy@sierraclub.org] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 1 :20 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Peduto to Trump: Pittsburgh will move to 100% Clean Energy FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, June 2, 2017 Contact: Shane Levy, Sierra Club - shanc.levv@sicrraclub.om:, 201-679-9507 View as webnaue Peduto to Trump: Pittsburgh will move to 100% Clean Energy Pittsburgh, PA. - Just hours after Donald Trump claimed to be represent the voters of Pittsburgh in his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, Mayor Bill Peduto today announced his support for a goal of powering Pittsburgh entirely with clean and renewable energy by 2035. Mayor Peduto joins a growing coalition of Mayors for l 00% Clean Energy who have similarly announced support for a goal of powering their communities with 100 percent renewable energy such as wind and solar. "Donald Trump said he was elected by voters of Pittsburgh, but his misguided decision to twithdraw from the Paris climate does not reflect the values of our city," said Mayor Peduto. "Pittsburgh will not only heed the guidelines of the Paris agreement, we will work to move towards 100 percent clean and renewable energy for our future, our economy, and our people" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000158-00001 ayors for 100% Clean Energy, an initiative of the Sierra Club's Ready for I 00 Campaign, represents a growing number of mayors from across the country who have endorsed a community-wide goal of transitioning entirely to renewable energy. On Wednesday, Columbia, South Carolina Mayor Steve Benjamin along with his=+--"--'--'--'---.-'-"---'-f-C---"-~~~~="---'-+"'introduced a landmark resolution to the U.S. Conference of Mayors that ould formally establish support from the nation's mayors for the goal of 100 percent renewable energy in cities nationwide. "For every terrible decision Trump makes, local leaders like Mayor Peduto are fighting to make sure clean energy continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Today's announcement shows how grassroots activists, frontline communities, local governments, and concerned people across the nited States can and will continue to drive the transition away from fossil fuels to I 00% clean and renewable energy," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "Pittsburgh is the first post-industrial city in the United States to aim to power itself with I 00 ercent clean energy," said Eva Resnick-Day, Community Organizer at the Sierra Club. "Our city has always been on the forefront of innovation and today's announcement by Mayor Peduto shows that we will continue to be." Ahead of the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual meeting in Miami Beach in June, Mayor Peduto's endorsement serves as a powerful message to the broader mayoral community regarding the opportunity and benefit that city leaders see in the transition to I 00 percent renewable energy. "Pittsburgh knows that our children's future and the future of our workforce are one and the same," said Glenn Grayson, Organizer with One PA. "We are working hard to invest in clean energy technology not only for the future of our planet, but for the health of our children, and the health of our economy." More than 25 U.S. cities have now committed to transition entirely to clean and renewable energy. "Cities can help lead the transition away from dirty fuels to renewable energy, but it will require oldness and ambition to get it done. I'm proud to stand with my fellow Mayors for 100% Clean Energy to call for a transition to I 00 percent clean and renewable energy in my community," said Mayor Peduto. ### bout the Sierra Club The Sierra Club is America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 3 million members and supporters nationwide. In addition to creating opportunities for people of all ages, levels and locations to have meaning/id outdoor ex eriences, the Sierra Club works to sa e uard the health o our communities, rotect wildli e, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000158-00002 Sierra Club I 2101 Webster St., Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 To subscribe, email media.assistant@sierraclub.org www.sicrraclub.org/pressroom I sicrra.ncws@sicrraclub.org If you would rather not receive future communications from Sierra Club, let us know by clicking here. Sierra Club, 2101 Webster St Suite 1300, Oakland, CA 94612 United States SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000158-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Richard. morrison@cei.org[Richard. morrison@cei.org] Joseph Bast Thur 8/24/2017 5: 11 :58 PM CEI: EPA Denial of Chlorpyrifos Ban Sets Pro-Science Precedent: FYI. Joe From: Richard Morrison [mailto:Richard.Morrison@cei.org] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 12:06 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Agriculture and science policy in the Trump White House Joe, The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Angela Logomasini has a new policy brief out on the recent decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt not to pursue a ban on the popular pesticide chlorpyrifos. The administration has subsequently taken heat for this action, despite it being based on the best sound science principles. Angela discusses why government policy on science and the environment shouldn't be made according to environmental activist press releases, and how U.S. farmers need access to effective and affordable pest control in order to keep producing the food that feeds the rest of us. If you can help amplify this message by sharing the content below with your colleagues or on social media, we would be much obliged. EPA Denial of Chlorpyrifos Ban Sets Pro-Science Precedent: Activist Petition to Ban Safe and Valuable Pesticide Would Undermine Food Affordability (CEI OnPoint, 8/10/17) h tifos SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000159-00001 h s://twitter.com/ccidotoru status/895753626513178624 Bugged by Junk Science (Huffington Post, 8/21/17) h h s://twitter.com/ccidotoru status/900003398354972673 NYT Pesticide Expose Only Exposes Foolish Reporting (blog post, 8/23) h h s://twitter.com/ccidotoru status/900496877740863489 If you have any questions about the material above, please let me know. Cheers, Richard Morrison Senior Editor, Competitive Enterprise Institute Executive Producer, "I, Whiskey: The Human Spirit" cei.org/whiskey SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000159-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 6/30/2017 2:27:30 PM EPA will proceed with Red Team HIT Roger Bezdek. Joe EPA Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate science Published: Friday, June 30, 2017 U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science using a "back-and-forth critique" by government-recruited experts, according to a senior administration official. The program will use "red team, blue team" exercises to conduct an "at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science," the official said, referring to a concept developed by the military to identify vulnerabilities in field operations. "The administrator believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals ... provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science," the source said. "We are in fact very excited about this initiative," the official added. "Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing." The disclosure follows the administration's suggestions over several days that it supports reviewing climate science outside the normal peer-review process used by scientists. This is the first time agency officials acknowledged that Pruitt has begun that process. The source said Energy Secretary Rick Perry also favors the review. Executives in the coal industry interpret the move as a step toward challenging the endangerment finding, the agency's legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and other sources. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000160-00001 Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., said Pruitt assured him yesterday that he plans to begin reviewing the endangerment finding within months. "We talked about that, and they're going to start addressing it later this year," Murray said in an interview. "They're going to start getting a lot of scientific people in to give both sides of the issue." But another person attending the meeting said Pruitt resisted committing to a full-scale challenge of the 2009 finding. The administration source also said Pruitt "did not promise to try to rescind the endangerment finding." Climate scientists express concern that the "red team, blue team" concept could politicize scientific research and disproportionately elevate the views of a relatively small number of experts who disagree with mainstream scientists (Climatewire, June 29). Pruitt told about 30 people attending a board meeting of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity yesterday morning that he's establishing a "specific process" to review climate science, the administration official said. Murray and two other people in the room interpreted Pruitt as saying he would challenge the endangerment finding. Challenging the endangerment finding would be enormously difficult, according to many lawyers. The finding is built on an array of scientific material establishing that human health and welfare is endangered by a handful of greenhouse gases emitted by industry, power plants and cars. It stems from a Supreme Court ruling in 2007. If Pruitt somehow succeeded in rolling back the finding - an outcome that many Republicans say is farfetched - the federal government would no longer be required to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. Power companies have told Pruitt they don't want him to wade into a protracted and public legal battle that he would likely lose. Many have said that if EPA rescinds its carbon standards for power plants - the Clean Power Plan - the agency should write a substitute rule and try to avoid court fights that might confuse their efforts to make long-term business plans \.=:..='~'~'\'.':..'!.!....'.:::'., June 22). Murray yesterday commended President Trump's announcement that he would try to boost some coal exports, but he said that ultimately what the sector needs is for EPA to nix the endangerment finding. Perry also has touted carbon capture and sequestration technologies for coal plants, even as he questions whether climate science is settled. Murray said carbon capture won't help, either. "Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It's a pseudonym for 'no coal,"' Murray said while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters. "It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, 'Look what I did for coal,' knowing all the time that it doesn't help coal at all." Murray acknowledged that the legal fight over the endangerment finding would be "tough." He thinks that's because climate activists and renewable power producers want to keep making money off climate change. "All these people will be jumping on this on the other side because it's all about money, but it is not about America. America needs reliable, low-cost electricity, and that is a mix of different fuels," he said. Murray also wants Perry to use emergency authority to stop coal and nuclear plant closures, although SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000160-00002 lawyers have said that is unlikely to happen (Energywire, June 19). Still, Murray, who is close with the president, said he thinks Trump would be "receptive" to the idea. Reporter Rod Kuckro contributed. Twitter: (if:cmilvhholdcn Email: eholdcn((11ccncws.nct SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000160-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 7/20/2017 5:10:56 PM Good news on the air quality front h ://abcnews. o.com/Politics/wireSto mandate-48711207 This is a courageous act by Republican members of Congress. We should congratulate them and provide scientific support wherever possible. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000161-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 5/31/2017 10:57:32 PM Where's the science? A donor to Heartland noticed that some of us aren't hitting the dubious science of the Paris accord as hard as we are the economics - the cost and geopolitics of it. I hope those of you who are well practiced in explaining why CO2 is not a pollutant will voice your opinion at this critical moment in the national and international debate. Let's not let the other side claim to occupy the high ground. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000162-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 8/21/2017 10:38:55 PM Wow: Only 28% of Americans Think Climate Scientists Really Understand Climate Change ... and fewer than 20% of people responding to this survey believe climate scientists know how we should address the issue. The American people are way smarter than the media, Hollywood, most academics, and every Democrat in the country. I think I can hear Al Gore weeping ... Joe h Scott Rasmussen's Number of the Day By Scott Rasmussen August 21, 2017: Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Americans think that climate scientists understand the causes of global climate change "very well." A Pew Research study found that only 19% believe that the climate scientists have a very good understanding of the best ways to address the issueY 1 In general, the study found that Americans trust climate scientists more than politicians on the topic. Two-thirds (67%) believe scientists should play a major role in addressing policy issues on the matter. Most (56%) also believe that energy industry leaders (56%) and the general public (56%) should have a major say in such policy topics. The Pew study, however, also found that people believe there are differences of opinion among the climate scientists. Only 27% believe that there is a consensus on the issue and that just about all climate scientists believe human behavior is mostly responsible for global climate change. Another 35% think more than half hold this view. The survey also explored the degree of trust and confidence in those researching climate science. Thirty-six percent (36%) believe that, most of the time, scientists' research findings are motivated by a desire to advance their own careers. Only 32% say that they mostly rely on the best scientific evidence. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe that political views of the scientists generally influence their work. Liberal Democrats tend to express high levels of confidence in the climate scientists and their motives. Conservative Republicans are often quite skeptical. Most other Americans have mixed views. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000163-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 8/20/2017 3:16:38 AM Roy Spencer's new book: An Inconvenient Deception Roy Spencer writes, Today my e-book entitled "An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy'' became available on Amazon Kindle. It is mostly a critique of his most recent movie and book by the same title. The e-book is currently running neck-and-neck with Al Gore's paperback version of An Inconvenient Sequel (it's ahead of the Kindle and audiobook versions), under the category of Earth Science/Climatology. I did a short blog post on it here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/an-inconvenient-deception-how-al climate-science-and-energy-policy/ gore-distorts- John Stossel will mention it in his syndicated column appearing Wednesday. -Roy Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000164-00001 The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000164-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 5/31/2017 3:48:31 PM WHO report: Tobacco and the environment I have seldom seen a worse collection of junk science and utter nonsense than this: http://edition.cnn.com/2017 /05/31 /health/tobacco-environment-who-report/ The point of collecting and spewing all this junk is contained in the penultimate sentence: Although governments worldwide already collect $270 billion in tobacco taxes a year, the WHO suggests that increasing tax and prices is an effective way of reducing consumption and help development priorities in each country, adding that by collecting 80 cents more per pack, the global tax revenue could be doubled. Think of all the good things we could do with $270 billion more of other people's money. HIT Brad Rodu. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000165-00001 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000165-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 6/28/2017 1:18:33 PM Canada is also cutting back on global warming studies HIT Wendell Cox. joe From: Wendell Cox [mailto:j Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Sent: Wednesday, June 28: 2017 7:44 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: FYI : https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/scientists-brace-for-cuts-as-federalclimate-funding-expires/article35484709/ ace for climate-fundcutoff ral funding forces scientists to shut down projects from soon-to-expire $35-million program SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000166-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 8/18/2017 6:14:23 PM Gore goes nuts in interview about his movie HIT William Dwyer ... see especially the highlighted sections. Joe https ://www.spectator.co.uk/2017 /08/q uestion-al-gore-on-clim ate-change-and-hell-callyou-a-den ier/ UK Spectator Question Al Gore on climate change and he'll call you a 'denier' You must swallow whole the apocalyptic vision he presents - or else Ross Clark 19 August 2017 The subtitle of Al Gore's new film is 'Truth to Power', which is supposed to give the impression of brave old Al fighting for right against the mighty fossil fuel establishment. But it is somewhat ironic, given his response when the power being challenged is Gore himself. The former vice president was in London last week to promote his new film and I, along with the world's press, was invited to a private screening before being allotted an entire eight minutes talking with the great man. An Inconvenient Sequel is an odd film. Billed as a film about global warming, it is really about Gore himself. It starts with him plodding around on a glacier in Greenland, but much of its running time is devoted to scenes which really have nothing to do with the subject - other, perhaps, than that they depict a lifestyle somewhat at odds with a man preaching the need to cut carbon emissions. Gore is seen driving a large Jeep to visit his childhood home, and jetting off around the world. As for the scenes of his failed presidential campaign in 2000 and the Bataclan massacre in Paris in 2015, I fail to see what they have to do with climate change. But one scene catches my eye and makes me want to look into the subject more deeply. The film cuts from Gore on his melting glacier to a flooded street in Miami Beach, with a voice-over from Gore making a strong connection between the two - the melt-water from Greenland is already spilling over the streets of US cities. An elderly SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000167-00001 Miami resident is seen telling Gore that the streets never used to flood when he was young. The implication is that sea-level rise is happening frighteningly quickly - and it is all down to carbon emissions, if not nature's revenge for all those hanging chads which denied him victory in Florida and therefore the 2000 presidential election. It caught my eye because it reminded me of an issue of accuracy which Gore encountered with his first film, An Inconvenient Truth, in 2006. In a High Court ruling over whether the film could be shown in schools, Mr Justice Barton ruled that while it was 'broadly accurate', it contained nine 'significant errors'. One of them concerned a claim that sea levels could rise by 20 feet in the near future due to the melting of ice in Greenland or the west Antarctica ice sheet - something the judge ruled to be 'distinctly alarmist'. Another involved a false claim that residents of Pacific atolls had already been forced to evacuate to New Zealand due to sea-level rise. Not being a climate scientist, the threat of sea-level rise is not something on which I feel qualified to propound, but I wasn't going to take Gore's word for it - not least because he is no more a climate scientist than I am. So I got in touch with Shimon Wdowinski, associate professor of marine geology and geophysics at the Florida International University, who has studied the flooding problem in Miami - exactly the sort of expert, one might think, with whom Gore or his team of researchers might have been in touch before making a documentary film involving the issue of flooding in Miami. Wdowinski - who said that he had had no contact with Gore or his team - did not refute the connection between sea-level rise and glacier melt, but suggested it is more complex than Gore's film makes out. Over the past decade and a half, sea levels in Miami and along the rest of the eastern seaboard of the United States, have taken an upwards jolt and are currently rising by between 6mm and 9mm a year. However, the long-term rise in sea levels - caused by a combination of melting ice and thermal expansion of the oceans - is only 2mm. The rest is short-term variability caused by changes in ocean currents. Interestingly, there may be some link between melt-water from Greenland and the change in ocean currents - Wdowinski has identified a similar short-term uplift in the rate of sea-level rise in Florida in the 1940s, when temperatures in Greenland saw a temporary upwards blip and were as high as they are now. But these findings he describes as only 'preliminary'. He has also investigated another factor behind flooding in Miami - subsidence in parts of the city which are built on reclaimed swamps. Satellite measurements reveal that some streets now lie 16 to 24cm lower than they did 80 years ago -which might explain why long-established residents are seeing places flood which never used to flood when they were young. When I put all this to Al Gore and ask him whether his film would be stronger if it acknowledged the complexities of sea level rise - why it is rising in some places and not in others - I am expecting him to bat it away, saying that it doesn't counter his central point and that there is a limit to what you can put into a film pitched at a mass audience, but his reaction surprises me. As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski's name, he counters: 'Never heard of him - is he a denier?' Then, as I continue to make SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000167-00002 the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: 'Are you a denier?' When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don't know, he jumps in: 'You are a denier.' That is a strange interpretation of the word 'deny', I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares 'Time's up', and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: 'Can I have a word with you?' I wasn't supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because 'this is a film junket, to promote the film'. Surely if you are going to make a film claiming climate change to be a grave threat to the world, you ought to be prepared to answer detailed questions about it. If you are reading this, Al, the questions I didn't get to ask you were: you don't like it, for good reason, when oil companies weigh in on climate change, so don't you think you are yourself open to charges of vested interests given that you set up and are still involved in Generation Investment Management, a fund which invests heavily in green energy? And secondly: you have described climate change as a 'moral challenge' which can be 'reduced to a binary choice'. Doesn't that remind you a bit of your nemesis, George W. Bush, saying, after the 9/11 attacks: 'You are either with me or with the terrorists'? Doesn't climate change present a wide range of policy choices, involving an awkward trade-off between reducing carbon emissions and economic growth? Most people, to a greater or lesser extent, accept that carbon emissions are a problem which must be addressed. But with Al Gore there is no room for any uncertainties you swallow whole the apocalyptic vision in his films or you are a 'denier'. He and his 'climate ambassadors' whom he has trained to spread his message resemble a charismatic church whose leader must be paid constant homage. He is an obstacle to serious debate. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000167-00003 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000167-00004 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Joseph Bast Sent: Tue 5/30/2017 9:16:22 PM Subject: RE: Invitation Heartland Mailing List of US Climate Scientists.xlsx Heartland Mailing List of US Climate Economists.xlsx To: From: John, Here are the revised spreadsheets with bio information for everyone. Also added a few addresses and email addresses that were missing from the earlier versions. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000168-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 8/17/2017 7:07:48 PM Peer reviewers for Fourth National Climate Assessment John Droz writes, Joe, I was just made aware of this: Call for Review Editors for Fourth National Climate Assessment. USGCRP is currently seeking individuals with pertinent, demonstrated expertise to serve as Review Editors for the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4). The deadline for applications is September 8, 2017. What do you know about it? Is it appropriate to get Red Team people to apply? This is the first I've seen this too, though that isn't too surprising since I'm not a scientist and haven't been looking for such an opportunity. It does seem to me that having some of our friends to participate in this review is a good idea. If you choose to apply, please consider letting me know. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000171-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 7/18/2017 3:28:40 PM Two good pieces in today's WSJ Steve Milloy and Heartland's own Isaac Orr have excellent pieces in today's WSJ. Have you applied to join one of EPA' s science advisory boards? Choose the '---'----"-'--'-----"---=-"-"--'--'-=""-"---'----'-'='--"--'--'- link to fill out an application form. Joe A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA Scott Pruitt sweeps out Obama-era science advisers. The agency needs truly independent ones. By Steve Milloy July 17, 2017 5:14 p.m. ET The Trump administration in May began the process of replacing the small army of outside science advisers at the Environmental Protection Agency. In June, 38 additional EPA advisers were notified that their appointments would not be renewed in August. To Mr. Trump's critics, this is another manifestation of his administration's "war on science." Histrionics aside, the administration's actions are long overdue. The most prominent of the EPA' s myriad boards of outside advisers are the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC. Mostly made up of university professors, these boards also frequently draw members from consulting firms and activist groups. Only rarely do members have backgrounds in industry. All EPA boards are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that they be balanced and unbiased. While the EPA is required by law to convene the SAB and CASAC, the agency is not bound by law to heed their advice. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000173-00001 The EPA's Obama -era "war on coal" rules and its standards for ground-level ozone-possibly the ='--"--"----=='--"-"----'----"" EPA rule ever issued-depend on the same scientifically unsupported notion that the fine particles of soot emitted by smokestacks and tailpipes are lethal. The EPA claims that such particles kill hundreds of thousands of Americans annually. The EPA first considered regulating fine particles in the mid- l 990s. But when the agency ~~~ past CASAC in 1996, the board concluded that the scientific evidence did not support the agency's regulatory conclusion. Ignoring the panel's advice, the EPA' s leadership chose to regulate fine particles anyway, and resolved to figure out a way to avoid future troublesome opposition from CASAC. ~~ In 1996 two-thirds of the CASAC panel had no financial connection to the EPA. By the mid2000s, the agency had entirely flipped the composition of the advisory board so two-thirds of its members were agency grantees. Lo and behold, CASAC suddenly agreed with the EPA's leadership that fine particulates in outdoor air kill. During the Obama years, the EPA packed the CASAC panel. Twenty-four of its 26 members are now agency grantees, with some listed as principal investigators on EPA research grants worth more than $220 million. Although the scientific case against particulate matter hasn't improved since the 1990s, the EPA has tightened its grip on CASAC. In effect, EPA-funded researchers are empowered to review and approve their own work in order to rubber-stamp the EPA's regulatory agenda. This is all done under the guise of "independence." Another "independent" CASAC committee conducted the most recent review of the Obama EPA' s ground-level ozone standards. Of that panel's 20 members, 70% were EPA grantees who'd ==::....::.=more than $192 million from the agency over the years. These EPA panels make decisions by consensus, which has lately been easy enough to achieve considering they are usually chaired by an EPA grantee. Would-be reformers have so far had no luck changing the culture at these EPA advisory committees. In 2016 the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, where I am a senior fellow, sued the agency. We alleged that the CASAC fine-particulate subcommittee was biased-a clear violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We found a plaintiff who had been refused CASAC membership because of his beliefs about fine particles. Unfortunately, that individual was not willing to take a hostile public stand against the EPA for fear of professional retribution. We ultimately withdrew the suit. The EPA's opaque selection process for membership on its advisory boards has opened the agency to charges of bias. In 2016 Michael Honeycutt, chief toxicologist of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, was recommended in 60 of the 83 nominations to the EPA for CASAC membership. The EPA instead selected Donna Kenski of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium. Ms. Kenski received only one of the 83 recommendations. While no one objected to Mr. Honeycutt's nomination, Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) lodged an objection to Ms. Kenski's nomination, claiming she had exhibited partisanship during an earlier term on the committee. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000173-00002 Congress has also tried to reform the EPA' s science advisory process. During the three most recent Congresses, the House has passed bills to provide explicit conflict-of-interest rules for EPA science advisers, including bans on receiving EPA grants for three years before and after service on an advisory panel. The bills went nowhere in the Senate, where the threat of a Democrat-led filibuster loomed. Had they passed, President Obama surely would have vetoed them. President Trump and his EPA administrator have ample statutory authority to rectify the problem. As Oklahoma's attorney general, Scott Pruitt spent years familiarizing himself with the EPA's unlawful ways. He is in the process of reaffirming the independence of the agency's science advisory committees. This won't mean that committee members can't have a point of view. But a committee as a whole must be balanced and unbiased. Mr. Pruitt's goal is the one intended by Congress-peer review, not pal review. Mr. Milloy served on the Trump EPA transition team and is the author of "Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA. " Appeared in the July 18, 2017, print edition. Germany Should Say Danke for U.S. Oil Angela Merkel's slaps at Trump don't help her country's cause. America's trackers do. By Isaac Orr July 17, 2017 5:16 p.m. ET German Chancellor Angela Merkel used her closing speech at the recent Group of 20 summit to chide President Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. Yet the German people will benefit far more from the American president's focus on facilitating U.S. energy production and boosting exports than from Mrs. Merkel's climate policies. They have increased residential electricity prices for German households and failed to achieve any meaningful reductions in fossil-fuel consumption or carbon-dioxide emissions. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000173-00003 Germany has developed a reputation as a green-energy superpower, but in many respects it isn't. Of all the =~V--'== in Germany in 2016, 34% came from oil, 23.6% from coal, 22.7% from natural gas, 7.3% from biomass, 6.9% from nuclear, 2.1 % from wind power, and 1.2% from solar. Waste, geothermal and hydropower accounted for the remaining 2%. All told, Germany derived more than 80% of its total energy consumption from fossil fuels. That's bad news for a country that ===-=-'-''-"='IT -'--1',r'--",r ='"u=•· About 97% of the oil, 88% of the natural gas and 87% of the hard coal Germans consume are imported. Though they may find it difficult to swallow, the German people will benefit from Mr. Trump's efforts to make energy resources accessible and affordable. Germans spent $73.5 billion on imported oil in 2013, when the price of Brent crude averaged =====.1--~108 a barrel. Since then, the U.S. embrace of hydraulic fracturing-also known as "fracking"-has resulted in a surge of U.S. crude oil on the world market, causing global oil prices to fall to about $47 per barrel. Some back-of-the-envelope math suggests Germans may now pay $41.5 billion less per year for their oil imports, constituting an average savings of around $1, I 07 (at current exchange rates) for each of Germany's 37.5 million households. Ms. Merkel's climate and energy policies have caused residential electricity prices in Germany to spike by approximately 47% since 2006, costing the average German household about $380 more a year. The higher prices are largely due to a IO-fold increase in renewable-energy surcharges that guarantee returns for the wind and solar-power industries. These surcharges now make up 23% of German residential electric bills. The German people are paying far more for their household energy needs under Ms. Merkel, yet they have little to show for it. Since 2009, when Germany began to pursue renewables aggressively, annual CO2 emissions are down a negligible 0.1%. Meanwhile, the U.S. experienced year-over-year reductions in CO2 emissions in 2015 and 2016, and CO 2emissions have fallen a dramatic 14% since 2005. This has mostly been made possible by fracking-a practice banned in Germany. Fracking has allowed the U.S. natural-gas industry to compete with coal in a way that wasn't previously possible, lowering costs for everyone. Slapping around Mr. Trump, who is deeply unpopular in Germany, might score Ms. Merkel some domestic political points. But if the German leader really wants to help the environment, she might consider scaling back the attacks. Without American energy production and exports, Germany-and the world-would be a dirtier, darker and less efficient place. Mr. Orr is a research fellow at the Heartland Institute. Joseph Bast SELC v EPA No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000173-00004 Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000173-00005 From: Joseph Bast Thur 8/17/2017 2:07:40 PM Possible Vatican conference on climate change in November vat-sorondo-2017nov.docx Sent: Subject: Christopher Monckton sent the attached memo from Monsignor Sanchez Sorondo, the Prefect of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, proposing another climate-change meeting in Rome to occur in early November. I don't believe Heartland will attempt to send a delegation, but some folks receiving this email might want to follow this, write about it, etc. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000174-00001 Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences: Workshop 2-4 November 2017 Over the last three years, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS) have held a series of meetings related to the degradation of the environment, climate change, extinction and sustainable development and have briefed the Holy Father Pope Francis about the outcome of some of these meetings. The meetings typically include scientists, policy makers, philosophers and theologians and at times, world leaders. At one such ===---==-"--=-~ the attendees arrived at the following conclusion: "This century is on course to witness unprecedented environmental changes. In particular, the projected climate changes or, more appropriately, climate disruptions, when coupled with ongoing massive species extinctions and the destruction of ecosystems, will doubtless leave their indelible marks on both humanity and nature. As early as 2100, there will be a nonnegligible probability of irreversible and catastrophic climate impacts that may last over thousands of years, raising the existential question of whether civilization as we know it can be extended beyond this century. Only a radical change in our attitude towards Creation and towards our fellow humans, complemented by transformative technological innovations, could reverse the dangerous trends that have already been set into motion inadvertently." Dasgupta, Ramanathan, Raven, Sanchez Sorondo, Arber et al., 29 April 2015 Comprehensive as these meetings were, they did not fully factor in the adverse public health effects of air pollution and climate change. Reliance on fossil fuels and burning of solid biomass are the major, if not the dominant, sources of air pollution and climate change. Scientific studies related to health effects of air pollution date back to at least the 1950s and there is now an immense body of evidence on how air pollution harms health. However, the health consequences of climate change, both direct and indirect, have not received much attention until recently. Thanks to two recent international efforts, one by the World Health Organization and another from the LANCET commission, climate effects are beginning to receive the sort of attention they deserve, particularly since, both studies concluded: "Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." Margaret Chan, Secretary General WHO; Editorial in LANCET, 2015 It is now time for a more holistic meeting at the Vatican that documents the interconnections between fossil fuel use, the pollution of the atmosphere and the oceans, climate change, public health, the health of ecosystems and sustainability. The central focus will be on the health of the people and the health of the ecosystems and their interdependence between ecosystems and people. It is likely such a focus on people's health may very well bring people and political leaders to push for more drastic actions to limit air pollution and climate change below dangerous levels now being reached and to implement policies to protect Earth's essential life support systems. Scope of the proposed meeting Burning of coal, oil, gas and solid biomass for energy access has become a major threat to the health of humanity. It also poses a major threat to the natural systems which sustain all life. Unsustainable demands for energy and wasteful utilization of natural resources affect health in a myriad of ways: Air pollution from burning fossil and solid biomass contributes to around 7 million premature deaths a year, mostly from ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and chronic obstructive airways disease in adults and acute lower respiratory illness in children. Globally, 88% of the world's population breathes air that does not meet WHO's air quality guidelines. Air pollution also destroys over 100 million tons of crops each year. Damages to human health and to the environment by air pollution are already valued at trillions of dollars (USD) per year. Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning leads to increased risks of extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, fires, severe storms, floods which in tum have major health effects. For example: a SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000175-00001 single heat wave event, which occurred in Europe in 2003, claimed 70000 lives; 250,000 excess deaths were attributed to droughts and famines during 2011-2012 in the horn of Africa. Tropical storm Haiyan claimed more than 7800 lives in the Philippines; heat waves in Pakistan and India lost at least 4000 people to the 2015 heat wave. While we cannot claim these extreme events were caused by anthropogenic climate changes, we know that the probability of exposure to extreme events is increasing significantly due to climate change. These extreme events affect the social and environmental determinants of health - clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter. Climate change also affects the spread of disease vectors, food insecurity, under-nutrition, mental health, displacement and migration. By end of century projections suggest that as a result of climate change together with population growth and demographic change there could be (Lancet Commission, 2015): 3 billion additional annual heat exposure events for elderly people; 1.4 billion additional annual person drought exposure events; 2 billion additional annual extreme rainfall exposure events. Climate change is occurring against a background of other far reaching environmental changes including freshwater depletion, land use change and soil degradation. We depend entirely on the living world (biodiversity) for our survival: they collectively make up the ecosystems into which we evolved and which make our life possible. We obtain all of our food from plants, yet only about 100 of the estimated 460,000 species supply 90% of what we eat, directly or indirectly. Two- thirds of the people in the world depend on plants for their medicine, and, for the rest of us, about a quarter of our medicines come from or came from plants. About one fifth of all species of organisms are estimated to be in danger of extinction now, but with current trends, half of all species could become extinct during the remainder of this century, 83 years. It is estimated that 12 million species of organisms exist, except for bacteria, but we have found and named only a out two million of them, and know next to nothing about the vast majority of even those we have named. Ocean acidification and deoxygenation resulting from fossil fuel combustion and resulting climate change have major consequences to coral reefs, fisheries and aquaculture, which provide nutrients to about 4 billion people. The acidity of the ocean has already increased by 30% due to increase in atmospheric CO2; with unchecked emissions of CO2, it can increase by 100% by 2100. Oxygen loss in the open and coastal oceans, called as de-oxygenation, is being observed and is largely due to ocean warmmg. All of these environmental effects will contribute to global inequality since the poorest three billion are still depending on 18th century technologies for meeting basic needs such as cooking; and as a result are the most exposed to pollution. They will also be particularly vulnerable to climate change since they lack adequate coping systems such as health care, insurance or savings to deal with catastrophic events such as loss of home due to floods, loss of livelihood due to droughts, sea level rise and fires etc. Their ability to undertake physical labor will be reduced by increasing heat stress. Women and children are the worst affected. Climate change is projected to be responsible for additional 20 to 25 million under nourished children. UNICEF warned that climate change poses the greatest threat to children and their children. The meeting must discuss social justice and ethical issues as urged by Pope Francis in the encyclical Laudato si': "We have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor". We are assembling a meeting of global thought leaders in all these areas, with emphasis on human health, to consider the latest evidence and make recommendations to be submitted directly to Pope Francis and other world leaders for further actions. Experts spanning medicine, public health, air pollution, marine pollution, climate change, food and water security, ecology, species extinction, renewable energy, and policy should be included. The first two days will be devoted to a detailed assessment of the health of people and the ecosystem. We will document and diagnose the health impacts of fossil fuel combustion and the resulting climate change. The final day of the meeting will be devoted to seeking solutions and will end with a call for actions by policy makers and political SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_0000017 5-00002 leaders. SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Joseph Bast Sent: Mon 5/29/2017 4:56:26 PM Subject: RE: Invitation Heartland Mailing List of US Climate Scientists.xlsx Heartland Mailing List of US Climate Economists.xlsx To: From: John, Attached are spreadsheets for Heartland's lists of U.S. climate scientists and climate economists for whom we have email or snailmail addresses. I removed all international contacts and folks for whom we don't have sufficient contact information. Please invite them to EPA's meeting on "science integrity" in June. I hope you will invite me to attend as well, since I know and have worked with many of the people on these lists and, while not a scientist, have written extensively on climate science and economics. I don't need (more) attention or controversy, and perhaps neither do you. But ... * should I tell these folks via email that they will be receiving an invitation from you? * should I tell a larger group of allies and friends that you "may be able to get you an invitation to attend the June meeting on "science integrity" and suggest folks contact you? * should I let Kimberley A. Strassel know I reached out to you, and you agreed to invite some people I recommended? I'm happy to do all or none of these things per your instructions. I see the Union of Concerned Socialists has responded to Strassel' s column: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000176-00001 h of-facts Joe From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:52 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Re: Invitation That works Sir. Send me what you have please and we'll make it work. Thank you again. John Konkus Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Public Affairs Cell: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·• On May 26, 2017, at I :34 PM, Joseph Bast wrote: Mr. Konkus, Sorry I'm out of the office today, and about to host my mom's 86th birthday party! I can definitely provide you with a list of distinguished and independent scientists, economists, and policy experts, though perhaps not anymore today. Do you have a preferred format? I have email addresses for most, and snailmail addresses for most, but not both for all. I can provide you the list in an Excell spreadsheet. Please let me know. Best regards, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000176-00002 Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, May 26, 201711:31 AM To: Joseph Bast Cc: Dewey, Amy Subject: Invitation Mr. Bast: I just left you a voice message inquiring if you might have a list of scientists and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000176-00003 economists who would be interested in receiving an invitation to an upcoming "science integrity" meeting here at EPA in June? If you send a list, we will make sure an invitation is sent. Thank you Sir and enjoy the holiday weekend. John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile:i' Ex. 6 - Personal i Privacy i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i ' SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000176-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 6/27/2017 6:31 :45 PM Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule More than just talk ... Joe From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmail19.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:21 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: WSJ: Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ... WSJ: Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule New Rule Would Reverse Obama Administration's Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, Rule The Wall Street Journal Eli Stokols June 27, 2017 https ://www.wsj.com/articles/tru mp-er a-mo ve-to-rescind-obama-ad min istratio ns-clean-water-ru le1498586400 President Donald Trump's administration is moving ahead with plans to dismantle another piece of the Obama administration's environmental legacy, the rule that sought to protect clean drinking water by expanding Washington's power to regulate major rivers and lakes as well as smaller streams and wetlands. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Army and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are proposing a new rule that would rescind the Obama administration's Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule and "re-codify the regulatory text" that existed before its adoption in 2015, according to a press release obtained by The Wall Street Journal that will be sent out Tuesday afternoon. That action, the agencies contend, "would provide certainty in the interim" while a new rule-making SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000179-00001 process is undertaken. Coming almost a month after Mr. Trump announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, Tuesday's move is another sign the new administration and the EPA under administrator Scott Pruitt intend to prioritize the economic concerns of industry and agricultural interests over environmental concerns and, more broadly, to erase significant pieces of Mr. Obama's legacy. "We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation's farmers and businesses," Mr. Pruitt said in a statement. To Continue Reading Click Here U.S Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washin9ton, D.C 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000179-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 6/27/2017 4:30:18 PM Energy Week Talkers/Fact Sheet Excellent stuff here. Note there is no mention - not one - of global warming or carbon dioxide. This marks a complete pivot or re-set of U.S. energy policy. It's a beautiful thing to see. Also note: no mention of subsidies for "clean coal" or carbon sequestration (or alternative energies), also a major victory. Joe i From: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHO [mailto; Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 10:49 AM'·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· To: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHO Subject: Energy Week Talkers/Fact Sheet PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP UNLEASHES AMERICA'S ENERGY POTENTIAL "Together, we are going to start a new energy revolution -- one that celebrates American production on American soil." - President Donald J. Trump ACHIEVING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE: President Donald J. Trump has taken action in his first five months to remove unnecessary and burdensome roadblocks that would have prevented the United States from achieving energy dominance. •======== President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. •======== According to National Economic Research Associates (NERA), by 2040 the Paris Climate Accord would have cost the economy nearly $3 trillion and as many as 6.5 million industrial sector jobs, including 3.1 million manufacturing jobs. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000181-00001 •======== President Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency to rescind the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan. •======== According to NERA, the Obama plan would have increased electricity rates by as much as 14 percent, costing American households $79 billion. •======== President Trump called for TransCanada to resubmit its application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, and he then fast tracked its approval. •======== Construction of the Keystone pipeline is expected to support 42, 100 jobs and contribute $3.4 billion to the American economy. •======== President Trump ended the Obama Administration's coal leasing moratorium on Federal land. •======== Federal land accounts for 40 percent of the nation's coal production. •======== According to the American Action Forum, the moratorium could have cost the country billions of dollars and killed coal industry jobs. •======== President Trump rescinded the Obama Administration's Stream Protection Rule. •======== The Stream Protection rule would have imposed $1.2 billion in regulatory costs and added 218,000 hours of paperwork on American businesses. •======== The National Mining Association estimated the rule would cost 280,000 jobs across the economy. •======== President Trump directed the Department of the Interior to reconsider the Obama Bureau of Land Management's Hydraulic Fracturing Rule. •======== The Hydraulic Fracturing Rule was expected to cost the industry $32 million a year, adding $11,400 to the average cost of a hydraulic fracturing well. CRITICAL TO AN AMERICAN ECONOMIC BOOM: The United States energy industry is critical to the economy and future economic growth. •======== The energy sector has become a leading driver in hiring American workers, currently employing 6.4 million Americans. •======== Last year, the energy sector added over 300,000 new jobs and is expected to add 198,000 new jobs this year. •======== The average annual wage of workers in the oil and gas extraction industry is over $90,000. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000181-00002 •======== Approximately 32 percent of the 6.5 million construction industry employees work on energy or energy efficiency projects. •======== After being a net energy importer since 1953, the United States could be a net energy exporter as soon as 2020. •======== The natural gas revolution in the United States means our country will be a global player in exporting liquefied natural gas. •======== According to the American Action Forum, natural gas exports from 2016 to 2040 could bring in $1.6 trillion in trade value, increase workers earnings by $110 billion, and raise $118 billion in Federal revenue. ENERGY POTENTIAL: While Americans have been told they would have to settle for declining energy resources, innovation and new technology have opened trillions of dollars of energy for development. •======== For too long, the country's energy policy has operated on the false assumption that the country was running out of energy. •======== In 2006, Former Vice President Al Gore claimed we are "at or near what they call peak oil." •======== In 2011, Former President Obama claim "we can't just drill our way out of the problem." •======== In reality, American innovation and technology have allowed the United States to access an increasing amount of resources. •======== Current estimates suggest we have 20 percent more oil than Saudi Arabia, valued at over $13 trillion, if prices average $50 a barrel. •======== The United States is on track to export an average 1 million barrels of oil a day this year, double the pace of last year. •======== Natural gas reserves are expected to be so large that they can meet domestic demand for almost a century. •======== The United States has the second largest coal reserves in the world. PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: President Trump is following through on his promises to the American people. •======== On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump said: •======== "We will unlock job-producing natural gas, oil, and shale energy. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 We will ED_001389_00000181-00003 produce American coal to power American industry. We will transport American energy through American pipelines, made with American steel." •========"Together, we will create millions of good American jobs -- also, so many energy jobs -- and really lead to unbelievable prosperity all throughout our country." •========On June 28, 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump: •========"It will be American hands that remake this country, and it will be American energy -- mined from American resources -- that powers this country." •========"Weare also going to fully capture America's tremendous energy capacity. This will create vast profits for our workers and begin reducing our deficit." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000181-00004 Joseph Bast Tue 8/15/2017 5:45:54 PM "Climate Change" Critique videos (August 2017) Seven episodes ("Winds of Change") WINDS of CHANGE Peter 1 s Corner videos.pdf From: Sent: Subject: FYI, from Larry Gould. Joe From: Gould, Laurence [mailto:LGOULD@hartford.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 12:28 AM To: Gould, Laurence Subject: "Climate Change" Critique videos (August 2017)_Seven episodes ("Winds of Change") Dear Anthony, Joe, Pat, and Marc, Here's a recent (for-the-public) effort (attached, gives Contents): "Climate Change" Critique videos (August 2017)_Seven episodes of about 1 hour each: "Winds of Change"; link can be copied and pasted into browser from the attached or clicked here http://hudsonctv.com/CablecastPublicSite/search?channel=1 &guery=winds Featured are Joe D'Aleo, Michael Sununu, Tom Wysmuller, and Larry Gould (I'm featured in Episode VII on critical thinking). Feel free to distribute and post. - Larry SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000182-00001 Peter's Corner presents "Winds of Change" Examining Claims about Global Warming /Climate Change http://hudsonctv.com/CablecastPublicSite/search?channel=1 &que y=winds (Note: Parts are in reverse order; Part VII appearing first; and Part II is preceded by Part I) Part I: Host Peter Lanzillo and Joe D'Aleo in *CO2 the 'Demon Gas'* showed how the demonized CO2 is a trace gas, just 0.04% of our atmosphere. We showed evidence how it has little effect on temperatures but instead is a highly beneficial gas. It is a plant fertilizer that has greatly greened the planet and increase crop yields 3 to 5 fold. CO2 combines with water, nutrients and sunlight to grow plants through photosynthesis. We pump CO2 into greenhouses. As for it being a harmful pollutant, every breath you take emits 100 times more CO2 than the air you took in. Part II: Host Peter Lanzillo and Joe D'Aleo in *Taking the Earth's Temperatures* showed the many issues in attempting to assess what is happening globally. 75% of the global stations were dropped after 1990, up to 90% of the remaining stations have missing months each year, a large percentage of the stations are now not properly sited. Oceans cover 71 % of the globe and full accurate global coverage was not achieved until 2004. Dodgy models are used to adjust temperatures. Yet we claim we can assess global temperatures to hundredths of degrees. Part Ill: Host Peter Lanzillo, Joe D'Aleo and Michael Sununu in *Weather Extremes - the Real Story*, we showed though after Hurricane Katrina in 2004, scientists (and Al Gore) predicted devastating storms would be the 'new normal'. Yet since 2005, we have this week surpassed 4300 days without a major hurricane making landfall in the U.S. (more than double the 19th century record). The annual number of strong tornadoes are decreasing. There is no change in flood or drought frequency. Sea level rise globally has slowed to a 4 inch/century rate while models and the movie suggested changes in meters. Polar ice is just going through normal cyclical changes. Part IV: Host Peter Lanzillo and Joe D'Aleo In the *Real Natural and Man-made Causes of Climate Change*, we show how El Nino and La Nina cause warming and cooling and how decadal ocean basin cycles lead to a tendency for one or the other to dominate and lead to decadal temperature trends. We looked at the sun, which the climate models ignore, and show how solar cycles and the different solar outputs affect the climate and likely drive land and ocean temperature cycles. Volcanoes have a very strong affect but it tends to be shorter term. Man's primary influence is through land use changes most specifically urbanization. Part V: Host Peter Lanzillo, Joe D'Aleo and Michael Sununu looked at the *Energy at Risk* story. We showed how we here in New Hampshire and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000183-00001 the northeast pay, along with California, the highest electricity prices in the nation because of bad policies and how the Paris Accord - by driving the costs of energy to high levels - would devastate our nation's economy and hurt the poor and middle class and those on fixed incomes the most. We looked at current plans with special focus on Wind Energy. Part VI: Host Peter Lanzillo, Joe D'Aleo were joined by NASA sea level expert Tom Wysmuller and Professor Larry Gould. In *Isn't the Sea Level Rise a Sea Level Ruse?*, Tom Wysmuller confirmed the linear-unchanging & no-sign-of-acceleration of sea level rise globally - in contrast to all models and claims - and addressed the beneficial nature of CO2. Part VII: Host Peter Lanzillo was joined by Joe D'Aleo, Tom Wysmuller and a college professor, Dr. Laurence I ("Larry") Gould. In *Critical Thinking about Dangerous Anthropogenic 'Climate Change/Global Warming'*, Larry talked about how - by committing errors in elementary logic as well as by appealing to "authority", "consensus", and "code words" - schools, government, and the media have been indoctrinating our young people and the public to support harmful and unnecessary policies. 11 August 2017 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000183-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 7/17/2017 4:27:59 PM Isaac Orr and Fred Palmer in the Cleveland Sun on prewmature retirement of coal plants Nice piece below. Joe h ://www.clcveland.com/faces-of-thcsuns/index.ssf/2017 /07 /coal the nations power grid an.html Cleveland Sun 7/17/17 Coal, the Nation's Power Grid and the Broken Window Fallacy By: Isaac Orr and Fred Palmer, the Heartland Institute Over the past several years, more than 150 coal-fired power plants have closed their doors due to competition from low natural-gas prices and federal policies designed to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants. Several more coal-fired power plants have recently announced they will be retired before the end of their useful lives. These closures will drive up the cost of electricity for ratepayers and businesses without providing any tangible environmental benefits. Advocates for wind, solar, and natural-gas electricity systems have used the Energy Information Administration's estimates of the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) to argue these sources of energy are less expensive than coal-fired power plants. However, these figures are misleading, because LCOE only considers the cost of generating electricity from new power plants. EIA's figures do not consider the fact that existing coal-fired power plants, on average, generate electricity for half the price of the energy produced by new natural-gas plants and approximately three times less than wind power. Existing coal-fired power plants can produce electricity at a lower cost than new power sources because they have already paid off a good deal or all of the up-front capital costs needed to SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000184-00001 construct and operate them. As a result, retiring working coal-fired power plants before the end of their useful life is condemning a house after the mortgage has been paid off and forcing someone to buy a brand-new house and start the process all over again. It simply doesn't make any rational economic sense. Shuttering working coal-fired plants does not make any rational environmental sense, either. Many of the coal plants announcing their premature retirements are doing so in response to regulations limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released by power plants under President Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP). The purpose of creating the CPP was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by nearly one-third below 2005 levels by 2030. CPP would have cost tens of billions of dollars per year to implement, and it would have driven up the cost of electricity in most of the country. And what would Americans have received in return? Obama's own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) predicted CPP regulations would have only averted 0.018 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. That is an amount too low to be accurately measured with even the most sophisticated scientific equipment. In short, CPP was all pain for no gain, so Trump was correct to instruct EPA to begin the process of revising--or possibly rescinding--the rules. However, simply rescinding CPP will not be enough. The Trump administration must also look to revise or rescind the Obama administration's endangerment finding, which is based upon climate models that have predicted two to three times more global warming than has actually been observed by satellites and weather balloons. If the endangerment finding is not properly vacated, it will ensure massive litigation from the Sierra Club and others who will continue their efforts to prematurely close coal plants. Forcing the premature retirement of coal-fired power plants will not save the planet; it will only impose hardships on low-income families and senior citizens living on fixed income, especially in Midwestern states such as Ohio, where coal is the single most important source of electricity. Coal provided 59 percent of the electricity generated in Buckeye State in 2015, and shuttering these plants will increase costs on Ohio families and manufacturing businesses that rely on affordable energy. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000184-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 6/23/2017 9:24:53 PM National Geographic will air anti-coal film Sunday at 9:00 p.m. ET FYI. If you can watch this and take notes, please do and consider sending them to me. Joe From: Commun ications@n ma. org [mail to: Commu nications@nma.org Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 2:42 PM To: Subject: "From the Ashes" l Memorandum TO: Communications Committee Energy Policy Task Force FROM: Luke Popovich, Vice President External Communications DATE: June 23, 2017 SUBJECT: "From the Ashes" The National Geographic Channel will broadcast on 9 p.m. ET Sunday the documentary "From the Ashes" financed by Michael Bloomberg's foundation and produced by RadicalMedia®. Based on everything we know it will be highly critical of coal, will have limited theater engagement domestically but will air in 171 countries. According to Courtney Monroe, National Geographic Global Network CEO: "The film explores the reality of coal's role in climate change while offering insight into solutions that could help revive the struggling economies of dying mining towns and still safeguard the environment." Michael Bloomberg, a frequent critic of the coal industry, adds this description: "For over a century, mining and energy companies have been privatizing coal's profits while socializing its costs. Coal plant pollution kills 7,500 Americans a year and causes many more serious illnesses. 'From the Ashes' shows the risks we face as a nation if we continue to rely on coal and examines how Americans in local communities, including in SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000185-00001 coal country, are helping to lead the transition toward cleaner air and stronger economies." A trailer of the film can be found here . NMA was not contacted by the producers nor was our cooperation requested or opinion solicited in any way. The American Coal Council and the West Virginia Coal Association were contacted last year during production but after discussions with the producer declined to engage. NMA is preparing a rebuttal for any media requests but will not risk building awareness for the film and its allegations with proactive responses. Contact Luke Popovich at lpopovich@nma.org or (202) 463-2620 if you have questions National Mining Association 101 C011st1tut1on Avenue, NW• Sutle 500 East• Wash1nqlon, DC 20001 • (202) 46:1-2600 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000185-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 7/17/2017 3:08:40 PM A good review of Al Gore's "An Equally Inaccurate Sequel" htt ://www.dail ele ra h.com.au/rendezview/whos-afraid-of-the-bi monster/news-story/5079c031 c43e3de67572402640cc6fc0 -bad-climate- Miranda Devine July 16, 2017 Who's afraid of the big bad climate Play 0:00 Al Gore returns to the silver screen IN Al Gore's latest cinematic dose of climate scaremongering, a young Asian man is crying. "I feel so scared" he wails, before vision of solicitous uncle Al patting his hand in an attempt to soothe away his fears of the apocalypse. Scaremongering is what Gore does best, and fear is the business model that has made him rich, though his every apocalyptic scenario has failed to materialise. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000186-00001 In Australia last week to spruik his upcoming movie An Inconvenient Sequel, the former US vice president tried it on again, claiming Mother Nature was "screaming" and the world would -descend into "political disruption and chaos and diseases, stronger storms and more -destructive floods" unless we buy his snake oil. Silly Labor premiers bought that snake oil last week, pledging alongside the grinning Gore that Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and South Australia would embrace renewables to produce zero net emissions by 2050. They haven't learned the lesson from SA's extreme green experiment with renewable energy that has produced nothing but crippling blackouts and the highest electricity prices in the world. Any normal person with such a woeful record of accuracy as Gore would be ashamed to show his face. Eleven years after his Inconvenient Truth movie scared little kids witless, his warnings of f!!!!@~~Gfil;Ifil!Qf~r come to nothing. "Unless we take drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years," he told us then. Wrong. In fact the world has just been through almost 20 years in which there has been a hiatus in global warming, even as carbon dioxide has increased: an "inconvenient pause" as some wags put it. Around the world people are waking up to the fact that their leaders have been crying wolf, while their electricity bills go through the roof. Australia's prosperity is built on the reams of cheap, abundant fossil fuel under our feet, and yet green zealots have forced us into an energy crisis. But when Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly last week pointed out the logical fact that Australians will die because of high power bills, he was slammed as a "scaremonger" by the very people who worship at Al Gore's feet. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000186-00002 Yes, cold kills, and electricity prices have doubled in the past decade, as uncertainty plagues the energy sector, and cheap coal-fired power is priced out of the market by government subsidies for unreliable renewable energy production. The states, which bear much of the blame, continue with the fantasy that you can replace coal with wind and solar while simultaneously banning the development of onshore gas fields. The iron-clad law of -energy supply is that more -renewables force out baseload power, which you need when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Yet SA is pretending that the world's biggest battery built at huge taxpayer expense by another global green huckster, Elon Musk, is going to save the day. The diabolic task facing federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is to wrangle agreement on something approaching a rational energy policy out of the recently -released Finkel Review. Unlike Donald Trump, this government doesn't have an electoral mandate for pulling out of the Paris treaty. Tony Abbott was a climate sceptic yet he signed us up to the Paris renewable energy target of slashing emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2050. That was all he could get through Senate where even mining millionaire Clive Palmer had been got at by Al Gore. So this is where we are. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000186-00003 Appointing Alan Finkel as chief scientist was one of Malcolm Turnbull's first tasks after he deposed Abbott. Like Turnbull, Finkel is a climate true believer who drives an electric car and powers his South Yarra home on -renewables. He's also an accomplished scientist and entrepreneur with a PhD in electrical -engineering. He's smart but he has produced a report bullish on renewables and bearish on coal. Finkel is right that wimpish investors have deserted coal in Australia and that electricity prices have soared because of the uncertainty that ensued since Labor's vandalism from 2007. But coal is nowhere near obsolete. As the Australian Minerals Council points out, coal is the world's leading source of electricity and will be till at least 2040. In our region countries are busy building new clean coal plants. In East Asia alone 1250 new plants are under construction or planned. Yet in the past eight years in Australia not a single new baseload coal or gas generation unit has been built. That has to change. Turnbull has now come around to that realisation, telling the Liberal National Party state convention in Brisbane yesterday: "Those people who say coal and other fossil fuels have no -future are delusional." Fossil fuels are here to stay, despite Al Gore. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000186-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Joseph Bast Tue 8/15/2017 1:40:30 PM Norm Rogers reviews "Drawdown: The Most comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming" From: Sent: Subject: FYI: From: Norman Rogers [mailto:normanlrogers@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:44 AM To: normad@redskydawn.com Subject: Review of green energy book: Drawdown The book: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming is popular among advocates for green energy. It is filled with outrageous errors. h ://www.americanthinkcr.com/blo /2017 /08/thc emdrawdowncm cult.html Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000187-00001 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000187-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 8/14/2017 10:44:06 PM Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics I Watts Up With That? Good stuff ... h science-and-bad-politics/ Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000188-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 6/20/2017 8:50:37 PM The real deniers: Elites dismiss the costs of their climate policies borne by the less fortunate Excellent piece by Richard Rahn in Washington Times: h ://www.washirn.rtontimes.com/news/2017 r un/5/climate-chan°e-lobb -are-the-real-deniers/ Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000189-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 8/14/2017 9:21:35 PM Heartland's Tim Huelskamp in The Washington Examiner: Will Gore Demand a Recount? Nice! Joe h ://www.washin2tonexaminer.com/will-alsequel-has-flopped/article/2631035 ore-demand-a-recount-now-that-an-inconvenient- The Washington Examiner August 14, 2017 Will Al Gore demand a recount now that 'An Inconvenient Sequel' has flopped? Al Gore's latest flick, "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power," is now being shown in movie theaters across America. Yes, I didn't notice either. And the same goes for the millions of Americans who took in a movie this past weekend. Of the estimated $121 million Americans spent at the movies last weekend, less than $1 million was spent on the Gore's sad grab at political relevancy. Perhaps Gore can take solace in the fact that he narrowly edged out for 15th place another liberal-biased movie, "Cars 3," which targets children with fossil fuel lies via cute talking cars. No word yet on whether Gore is going to demand a recount. Despite tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in free promotion offered by the left-wing media for Gore, Americans didn't take heed. And after eight straight miserable years of the Obama administration misusing its control of government bureaucracies and schools, assisted every step of the way by the government-aligned left-wing media, the purveyors of climate doom thought they had won the battle of public opinion. Apparently not. Surveys and independent reviews of the peer-reviewed literature show Al Gore and his alarmist minions have not won the battle of so-called "scientific consensus" -which, by SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000190-00001 the way, is not how real science operates. For no matter how many scientists believed the Earth was flat in the 1500s, or warned in the 1970s an approaching an Ice Age, or announced that the "Piltdown Chicken" proved birds evolved from dinosaurs, it didn't change the facts. The Earth is round, the chicken was a hoax, and we aren't in a dangerous Ice Age yet. And let's not excuse or forget how wrong Al Gore has been. In his first film, he predicted catastrophic Antarctic and Greenlandic ice melts and rising sea levels engulfing millions. Instead, Antarctic ice has increased, and Gore even bought a beachfront mansion to prove he didn't believe it either. Gore also claimed that man-caused global warming would result in more catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes - but every day that passes sets a new record for a major hurricane failing to strike the US. Tornado activity has actually declined since its recent peak in the 1970s, despite the improved ability to find, track, and measure tornadoes. Gore also said in his first movie in 2006 that Mount Kilimanjaro would be free of snow on its peak by "the end of the decade." Guess what? That didn't happen either. Nor did his prediction that the Arctic would be ice-free by the summer of 2014. Polar bears didn't get his memo that they are dying off - drowning, as illustrated in the movie by a lonely cartoon polar bear swimming in an Arctic Ocean with no ice floes upon which to rest and hunt. The polar bear population today is larger and healthier that is has been at any time in the last 50 years. More than 10 years ago, Americans forked over $50 million to listen to the former vice president claim to be a scientist. Since then, most of his predictions have been dead-wrong. Will there be a rising sea of moviegoers rushing into watch the aging Al Gore preach this same sermon again? I doubt it. Who wants to spend $10 to be lied to a second time by someone whose first film only proved that he has no idea what he is talking about? Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D., is a former member of Congress and the president of The Heartland Institute, a 33-year-old national free-market think tank based in Illinois. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000190-00002 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000190-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 7/16/2017 3:10:39 PM [SPAM] The Guardian: Trump regrets 'bizarre mistke' of Paris climate pullout, Branson claims The Guardian is a just a socialist/communist rag, so this is wishful thinking, probably intended to send shivers of fear through the skeptic community. Still, a good hook for opeds etc. about "We're Still In," Sr. Richard Branson, and the rapid unwinding of the global warming delusion. Joe From: Jameson Campaigne [mailtoj Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2 0 17 2: 0 2 A\vr·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· To: Jameson Campaigne Subject: Trump & Paris -- the pressure to renege on his withdrawal Trump regrets 'bizarre mistake' of Paris climate pullout, Branson claims Oliver Milman Saturday 15 July 2017 Donald Trump regrets the "bizarre mistake" of withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement, Sir Richard Branson has said. The British billionaire also urged the president to help phase out the ailing US coal industry. Speaking in Brooklyn on Friday, the Virgin Group founder said businesses and cities were firmly behind a transition to low-carbon energy, which made Trump's decision to exit the Paris deal "very, very strange". "With climate change, it's America first and our beautiful globe last, and that seems incredibly sad," said Branson. "I've got a feeling that the president is regretting what he SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000191-00001 did. Maybe his children and son in law [adviser Jared Kushner] are saying, 'Look, I told you so.' Hopefully there is a positive change of mind." On Sunday, French president Emmanuel Macron said he was hopeful that Trump would reverse his decision, according to the newspaper Dimanche. "(Trump) told me that he would try to find a solution in the coming months," Macron told the paper, referring to meetings the two leaders had this week in Paris. "We spoke in detail about the things that could make him come back to the Paris accord." The US is set to become one of only three sovereign nations in the world not to be part of the Paris accord, which aims to stem dangerous global warming. Of the other two, Nicaragua feels the agreement does not go far enough, and Syria is mired in a disastrous civil war. Branson said his companies would join the "We are still in" campaign - a coalition of hundreds of businesses, cities and universities committed to keeping to the US's emissions reduction goals [and our still paying trillion-dollar subsidies to other countries?]. Companies from Apple and Facebook to oil giants Exxon and BP urged Trump to stick with the Paris agreement, only for the president to fulfill his election pledge to jettison the pact. There's no guarantee he'll change his mind. Who knows what goes on in there. The Paris decision was a bizarre mistake -- Sir Richard Branson "Trump had hundreds of the most influential business leaders in the world speaking to him and he ignored them [in favor of the average American citizen's pocketbook?], so there's no guarantee that he'll change his mind," Branson said. "Who knows what goes in there," he added, pointing to his head. "The Paris decision was a bizarre mistake. "You have people in America who believe the world was made 5,000 years ago. There are some strange people out there who have got into heady positions in the American SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000191-00002 government. You have the strange position of a cabal of people with very influential positions in America making these decisions." Branson admitted that he was unlikely to sway Trump, given his previous criticism of the president. In October, the British entrepreneur recalled a one-on-one lunch several years ago during which the future president explained how he was going to destroy five people who were unwilling to help him after one of his bankruptcies. Branson said the lunch was "bizarre" and showed Trump's "vindictive streak". However, he said he would advise Trump to drop his pro-fossil fuels stance and help transition coal miners into new work. "Coal mining is not the nicest of jobs," Branson said, adding that in Britain miners have largely moved into jobs "far more pleasant, far less dangerous and far better for their health. * "I'd suggest that the government should help coal miners move into alternative jobs, such as clean energy. Clean energy needs hundreds of thousands of people [since it is so uneconomic compared to coal, a feul with the highest BTU content of all feuls]. That would be good for the coal miners, good for America and good for the world [except for those whose taxes must pay for the subsidies required]. "Now is the time to get massive ["government", which means ordinary taxpayers'] investments into alternative energies. The vast majority of governments in the world are all still going in the right direction and companies in America are stepping into the breach." Branson was joined in a panel discussion by Andrew Liveris, chief executive of Dow Chemical and part of a group that advises the White House on manufacturing. Liveris said chemicals companies have moved on from "full frontal denial" of climate change and that businesses now grasp the seriousness of global warming. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000191-00003 "We are leaving governments behind, it's completely inverted," he said. "I believe we will find a way back into Paris. That's not coming from any deep knowledge, but because of the engagement on the issue." Branson was in New York to promote DS Virgin Racing, which competes in the Formula E electric racing series. Another of his companies, Virgin Atlantic, is part of an airline industry responsible for around 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions. He said cleaner fuel and more efficient plane designs were getting "closer step by step". "I was told 10 years ago it wasn't possible to get across the Atlantic with a plane carrying a battery powered by clean energy before 2050, because of the weight of it and so on," he said. "But the way things are moving, it's quite possible [?] that a battery driven plane could carry a plane full of passengers across the Atlantic by 2030. The airline industry could tick that box [on reducing emissions] before some other industries." Trump regrets 'bizarre mistake' of Paris climate pullout, Branson claims * Solar jobs figures by themselves are a fine example of Mises' "the seen and the unseen in economics", Here is the "unseen": the New York Times reported "that the solar industry employs far more Americans than wind or coal: 374,000 in solar versus 100,000 in wind and 160,000 in coal mining and coal-fired power generation. Only the natural gas sector employs more people: 398,000 workers in gas production, electricity generation, home heating and petrochemicals." The Times would have us think this is a plus, but as CFACT's Paul Driessen writes, "the job numbers actually underscore how wasteful, inefficient and unproductive solar power actually is." "Coal generated an incredible 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000191-00004 worker; natural gas 3,812 MWH per worker; wind a measly 836 MWH for every employee; and solar an abysmal 98 MWH per worker." "In other words, producing the same amount of electricity requires one coal worker, two natural gas workers -12 wind industry employees or 79 solar workers. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000191-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 8/12/2017 2:28:29 PM POLITICO - Pruitt: EPA will review 'politicized' climate science report You can download the Climate Science Special Report here: Publicauons - DRAFT: U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) I Heartland Institute Joe Pruitt: EPA will review 'politicized' climate science report Emily Holden Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said his staff will gauge the "accuracy" of a major federal science report that blames human activity for climate change - just days after researchers voiced their fears to The New York Times that the Trum ... Download the POLITICO app for your iPhone, iPad, or Android device Follow POLITICO on Twitter: @POLITICO Disclaimer: Please note that POLITICO is not responsible for the content within this email. POLITICO cannot verify the sender of this SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000192-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 7/15/2017 5:21 :03 PM Snopes on the Wallace, D'Aleo, and ldso report Will be interesting to see how Wallace et al. respond to this: h Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000193-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 8/12/2017 2:21 :27 PM Something fishy about NYT 'leaked' climate report From WNO: Something fishy about this New York Times 'leaked' climate report Scientists rip into paper for 'fake news in collaboration with the deep state' Published: 2 days ago Chelsea Schilling About I Email I Archive D' oh! "Fake news" has apparently struck again at the New York Times this week- this time over a leaked climate science report that, well, wasn't so leaked. In fact, the report has been available to the public for as many as seven months. The New York Times -which is featuring a marketing campaign called "The truth is more important now than ever" - claimed Monday that it was publishing a secret climate-change report because there's concern President Trump will try to suppress it. But scientists called out the "newspaper of record" when they noticed the report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was actually available for public comment for several months. The report was a project of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The Times' story is headlined, "Scientists fear Trump will dismiss blunt climate report." It claimed the report "has not yet been made public" but "a copy of it was obtained by The New York Times." The Times also said "those who challenge scientific data on human-caused climate change" are concerned that the report will be released to the public. Robert Kopp, one of the lead authors of the climate report and a climate scientist at Rutgers University, was puzzled when he saw the Times' story about his findings, which were made public last December. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000194-00001 Kopp tweeted: "It's not clear what the news is in this story; posted draft is public review draft from Dec, and WH review hasn't yet missed Aug 18 deadline." Kopp told Fox News the climate draft was published on the Environmental Protection Agency's website in January 2017 but was later taken down. He said it was still online at the Internet Archive's site. Another scientist and author of the climate report cited by the Times, Katharine Hayhoe, tweeted that it was "already accessible to anyone who cared to read it during public review & comment." She also added: "Side-by-side comparison shows that @nytimes has public review version of our new climate sci report - so, no leak. It was available to all." Hayhoe noted that anyone who wants to access the draft may request it from the National Academy of Sciences. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Tuesday that the Times story is "disappointing, yet entirely predictable." "As others have pointed out - and the New York Times should have noticed- drafts of this report have been published and made widely available online months ago during the public comment period," she said. "The White House will withhold comment on any draft report before its scheduled release date." In its report, the Times quoted an anonymous scientist who warned that President Trump could suppress the climate findings. "It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his Cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited," the New York Times reported. The Times also claims the National Academy of Sciences approved the draft, but scientists are "awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it." But, as Kopp tweeted, President Trump's administration hasn't missed the Aug. 18 review deadline, which is not for another nine days. Get the hottest, most ;mportant news stor;es 011 the lmernet delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as thev break! Take ;ust 30 second~ and sig 1 up for WND 's Email News Alerts! As of Wednesday, a version of the Times story had the following correction at the very end of its story: "An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000194-00002 The climate report cited by the Times claims, "evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans." It also states, "many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change." Several experts at the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank that frequently addresses climate issues, blasted the Times for printing "fake news" and "fake science." "The New York Times' front-page story on the national climate assessment represents fake news in collaboration with the deep state," said Fred Palmer, energy policy senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. "The first paragraph of the story gives the game away, claiming there has been a massive warming in the United States since 1980. In fact, there has been little if any warming based on satellite readings, corroborated 100 percent by weather balloon readings. The satellite data readily available on Dr. Roy Spencer's webpage show 0.28 degrees Celsius warming since 1979. That rate of warming would equal less than 0.75 degrees Celsius over 100 years. "The New York Times/deep state global warming hysteria is 100 percent the result of predictions from flawed, flux-adjusted computer models. None of us would live our lives that way, yet the deep state would have us govern our lives that way-with them in charge of our daily lives based on their fake science and flawed computer models." Marc Morano, publisher of the Climate Depot said: "Here we go again. The New York Times hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again pre-determined science. The Trnmp administration should reject this new climate report and consider a national commission on climate change with scientists not affiliated with environmental activist groups." Tom Tanton, director of science and technology assessment at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, said: "It appears the deep state in Washington is at it again. Unfounded scare tactics from a report not yet released? Early release is usually used to elicit comments and corrections from the scientific community and public. Never mind the underlying data have been compromised, cherry-picked to add to the distortions. Even just the start year for their 'trend' is questionable. I lived through the 1980s and they weren't anything special; what's wrong with the '30s? Oh yea, it would not show any warming. "Worse, there will be louder cries to 'do something,' likely meaning more mandates for consumers and more money for climate scientists. Yet nary a word about what's actually reducing greenhouse gases better than heavy handed government: the free market. It's outperforming government in all metrics. Maybe the alarmists and statists ought just leave well enough alone." Other responses to the Times article and the climate report itself included: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000194-00003 Isaac Orr, energy and environment policy research fellow at the Heartland Institute: "The recent story by The New York Times claiming a government scientist leaked a draft of a climate science special report for fear of the report being suppressed by the Trump administration demonstrates how politicized the debate over human influences on global temperatures has become. The claim is particularly noteworthy because it is simply not true: two of the authors of the report have noted on Twitter that a draft of the report has been readily available online since January." Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition and Heartland Institute energy and environment policy adviser: "It makes no sense to claim that temperatures in the United States have risen by 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 150 years when meteorologist Anthony Watts' Surface Stations study showed only 7.9 percent of existing stations achieved accuracies better than +/-l.8°F. The U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed Watts's research and concluded the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) surface temperature record is unreliable." Joe D' Aleo, executive director of IceCap.us and environmental policy adviser at the Heartland Institute: "The great scientists I have been privileged to know over my long career including Namias, Willett, Landsberg, and Gray and the great men who championed the scientific method like Feynman, Popper, and Einstein would be appalled by this report and the overall decline in the sciences and the alarming peer-review failures that allow bad and dangerous science like we find in this report to propagate and be used to support harmful policies. I believe the only part of this work that is 'extreme likely' is that future scientists and historians will look on it as a low point in the history of climate." John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel: "In all its detailed reports linking weather events to climate change and the linking of 'record high temperatures' with climate change, this report lacks the one key element that is essential to satisfy the scientific basis of the basic claim: linking increases in CO2 with significant climate change. In fact, this report provides absolutely no new science to support this key point. Therefore, on a scientific basis it is entirely without merit." Read more at h ://www.wnd.com/2017/08/somethin climatc-report/#MwlutCxu WqBevzqA. 99 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 -fish -about-this-new- ork-times-leakcd- ED_001389_00000194-00004 From: Joseph Bast Fri 6/16/2017 3:03:22 PM Science: We support transparency, but not when we have to comply with rules HONEST Act.pdf Sent: Subject: The attached is compliments of Cork Hayden. Shameful that Science would oppose the HONEST Act (the latest version of the "no secret science" legislation being pursued by Lamar Smith), which would be an excellent start to draining the EPA "science is what we say it is" swamp. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000195-00001 ThedishonestHONESTAct ~ 0 8 bl ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ! g "' ~ [ ~ Trump administration aims to eliminate into law, the Act will provide another avenue for such many regulations and make it more difficult cha I lenges to regulations and to the underlying science. to adopt new ones. More subtle and dangerous The Act would not void prior EPA decisions, but future deliberations would be required to exclude peerare attempts in Congress to undermine public health and environmental protections by limitreviewed historical studies for which this extensive ing the use of scientific evidence under the guise documentation is no longer available. To enable use of increased transparency. Th is effort, which as of studies that include sensitive information, such as envisioned by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency medical records, the Act permits such data to be re(EPA) leadership would dacted. But in practice, the greatly reduce the amount limited budget allocated for of science used in decisionpotentially costly redaction leaves the role of such studmaki ng, undermines the credibility and application ies in doubt. For a similar of scientific evidence, weakunpassed bill, the 2015 Seens the scientific enterprise, cret Science Reform Act, the and imperils public and enCongressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated implemenvironmental health. The Honest and Open tation costs at $250 million New EPA Science Treatment annually. Under President (HONEST) Act, in the SenTrump, this dropped to $1 ate after passing the House million because, according ofRepresentativesin March, to the CBO, "EPA officials would prohibittheEPAfrom have explained ...that the using studies for agency agency would implement [the Act] with minimal decision-making unless raw funding ... [which] would data, computer codes, and virtually everything used significantly reduce the by scientists to conduct the number of studies that the agency relies on." Costs of study are provided to the agency and made publicly gathering, redacting, and available online. Transparposting data wi 11erode the agency's effectiveness. ency and reproducibility are long-standing priorities The scientific community judgnent .." in science, and we welcome continues to improve data good-faith efforts to evaluate access. Wou Id the law adapt to allow the EPA to incorporate studies that take innoscientific evidence for use in public policy. But on these issues,the Act is dishonest---anattempt by politicians to vative approaches not foreseen by the Act? I mp roved override scientific judgment and dictate narrow stantransparency and reproducibility should ultimately dards by which science is deemed valuable for policy. It expand the scientific foundation for pub I ic health and imposes burdens that wi 11detract from scientists' abi I ity environmental protection. Unfortunately, the Act will to do research and to have it influencedecision-making, erode the evidence base for regulatory decisions and burden investigators and agencies with threats of endall aimed at bringing the process to a standsti II, minimizing the role of science, and I imiting regulations. less data reanalysis and cha I lenges to defend findings. Federal agencies must already adhere to strict stanIf the HONEST Act becomes law, it will embolden atdards of transparency and quality while considering tempts to dictate science and delay decisions at other a broad body of scientific evidence, and uncertainties federal, state, and local agencies. The community must therein. Polluters and manufacturers of dangerous make clear that the Act, a threat to health and the enproducts have taken a page from the tobacco industry vironment, is an unnecessary and burdensome political playbook, magnifying those uncertainties to prolong the intrusion into the scientific enterprise. review of scientific data, slow the regulatory process, -David Michaels and Thomas Burke* and evade liability. By writing narrow data standards ': ..theActis dishonest-an attemptbypoliticiansto override !:Cientific *The authors thank B. D. Goldstein and L. R. Goldman for their contribution to this editorial. SCIENCE sciencemag.org David Michaels is a professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. dmm @gwu.edu ~:J 0 OJ C. (D C. 3 3 0 :J L C :J (D Thomas Burke is the Jacob I. and lreneB. Fabrikant Professor and Chair in Health, Risk and Society, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. tbu rke1@ jhu.edu 10 .1126/ science.aan5967 9 JUNE 2017 • VOL 356 ISSUE 6342 989 Published by AAAS SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 0 ED_001389_00000196-00001 _(Jl N ~ --.J • 1ence The dishonest HONEST Act David Michaels and Thomas Burke Science 356 (6342), 989. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan5967 0 0 :;: ARTICLE TOOLS :J http:l/science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6342/989 0 OJ C. (D C. PERMISSIONS g http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions 3 :J" .§' ~ (") (ii" :J &l U1 (") (ii" :J (") (D 3 OJ (Q 0 te. 0 :J L C :J (D _(Jl N 0 -..J Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017©The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title Science is a registered trademark of AAAS. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000196-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 8/10/2017 8:45:20 PM Heartland in Washington Examiner re NYT's "leaked" report Climate skeptics slam New York Times as 'fake news' Climate skeptics slam New York Times as 'fake news' by John Siciliano I Aug 9, 2017, 6:51 PM Climate change skeptics at the Heartland Institute slammed the New York Times as "fake news" Wednesday after the newspaper reported this week that President Trump was looking to suppress a new federal report on global warming despite the report being publicly available. "The New York Times' front-page story on the National Climate Assessment represents fake news in collaboration with the deep state," said Fred Palmer, senior fellow at the conservative think tank. Isaac Orr, a researcher for the group, added that the story's claim that government scientists leaked a draft of the National Climate Assessment "for fear of the report being suppressed by the Trump administration demonstrates how politicized the debate over human influences on global temperatures has become." Orr added that the news account is "particularly noteworthy because it is simply not true," explaining that "two of the authors of the report have noted on Twitter that a draft of the report has been readily available online since January." The National Climate Assessment, a report by 13 federal agencies and a panel of climate scientists, reaffirmed that climate change is occurring and caused by human activity. It is required by Congress every four years. The Heartland Institute has been at the forefront of challenging the majority of scientists and the United Nations, who say the Earth's temperature is rising because of the greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels. The group has been tapped by the Trump administration to help set up a "red team" to challenge climate assumptions against an opposing blue team. The Washington Examiner first reported that the administration had tapped the organization by asking it to provide a list of scientists to form the red team. The New York Times issued a correction Wednesday that noted that the report had been readily available on the website for months. The newspaper also had erred in saying that it was the first SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000197-00001 to publish the draft of the report. Others joined Heartland to attack the report in a joint statement with the group. "Here we go again. The New York Times hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists," said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, a website that challenges climate science. "The new report is once again pre-determined science," he said. "The Trump administration should reject this new climate report and consider a national commission on climate change with scientists not affiliated with environmental activist groups." Palmer and Orr went after the science of the report's conclusions. "The first paragraph of the story gives the game away, claiming there has been a massive warming in the United States since 1980," Palmer said. "In fact there has been little if any warming based on satellite readings, corroborated 100 percent by weather balloon readings." "The New York Times/deep state global warming hysteria is 100 percent the result of predictions from flawed, flux-adjusted computer models," Palmer said. "None of us would live our lives that way, yet the deep state would have us govern our lives that way - with them in charge of our daily lives based on their fake science and flawed computer models." Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000197-00002 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000197-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 8/9/2017 7:33:57 PM Michael Coffman's last words, and more Debbie Bacigulupi sends this: Dr. Coffman's memorial service: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoHxcwTbwoQ&t=3s From Michael's Facebook page: As a scientist and writer, I have been fighting the global agenda that would destroy America as we know it for decades. As a researcher in the American paper industry, I ran a multimillion dollar research project on the effects of acid rain. When the results came in that it was basically a non-issue, I was told to quash my results or find a new job. That was when my eyes were opened to the fact that it was politics driving the science and not the other way around. In 1994, myself and a few other individuals stopped the cloture vote to move forward to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty which would have destroyed property rights in our country, thereby destroying free enterprise, the American way of life, and ultimately Freedom itself. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000198-00001 That is the goal of the Globalists. It is not "saving the planet," it's not even redistribution of wealth ultimately. It is Control. Global control of everyone and everything. Together with my wife and all who have worked with us, both as colleagues and as fellow warriors in the fight for freedom, we have labored to inform citizens and policy makers, and to stop this agenda. To all of you who read this, I say this, Don't give up. Keep fighting. Keep working. Keep doing whatever it is that God has called you to do. For me the fight is over. After a 2 ½ year battle with cancer, I am going Home. My time here is almost over. I thought I had more to do, but God is saying otherwise. Thank you to all who have fought and are continuing to fight for freedom. Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. 1 Car. 15:58 http://obituaries.bangordailynews.com/story/m ichael-coffman-1943-2017-94614 7251 Hal Shurtleff, Director of Camp Constitution, sent me this: Here is a link to his memorial service: And Camp Constitution Remembers Dr. Coffman: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000198-00002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzF1 KzDDe4w&t=47s Here is a link to Mike's first C-SPAN engagement that I had a hand in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GYLrckbLCE&t=1001 s He will be missed but he left us a great legacy of freedom. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000198-00003 any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000198-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 8/9/2017 5:14:54 PM More on Istvan Marko, RIP Friends, Lucaccioni Fabio tells us "Istvan underwent a benign operation on Friday before his death. It all went well. In the following days, he made a pulmonary embolism that was fatal to him and unfortunately he passed away Monday. Nobody expected that." Paul Driessen wrote to say the Breitbart piece Istvan coauthored with Willie Soon and others was polished, expanded, and posted at: https ://www. m asterresou rce. org/ cl imate-science/m it-president-exit-paris-i/ Paul adds, "He will be deeply missed, as will his enormous contributions to real climate science." Willie Soon wrote, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000199-00001 I also saw this tribute and report: https://www.contrepoints.org/2017 /08/01 /295909-hommage-a-istvan-marko and funeral notice: http://lesfunerailles.be/fiche/598067064e632/I stvan%20MARKO Willie wrote to Istvan's family: Dear Patricia and family, Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Willie Soon SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000199-00002 I also just learned that Michael Coffman passed away in July. See: http://obituaries.bangordailynews.com/story/m ichael-coffman-1943-2017-94614 7251 He was an early, persistent, and courageous critic of Agenda 21, the UNFCCC, and more. Author of several books ... he will be missed, too. Joe From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org1 Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11 :56 AM Subject: Sad news - Istvan Marko passed away on 7/31 Perhaps others saw this before, I had not. Joe From: Istvan Marko [mailto:istvan.marko@uclouvain.be] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 10:35 AM To: Joseph Bast;[______ Ex. 6 .-.Personal_Privacy_______ ] Subject: Sad news - Re: Patrick Frank on the CSSR Dear, as probably you know now, professor Istvan Marko passed away last Monday (07/31/2017). This email box will be closed soon. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000199-00003 Can you try to stop sending mail. If you need more information : Lucaccioni Fabio (fabio.lucaccioni@uclouvain.be): professor Istvan Marko (since 2001 ). First Head Chied Technician of Pr. Dr. Istvan E. Marko Universite catholique de Louvain Laboratoire de Chimie Organique et Medicinale lnstitut IMCN, Unite MOST Batiment Lavoisier, Place Louis Pasteur 1 Bte L4.01 .02 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Office :_+32(0)1_0_478773 _____ ~ Mobile : : Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : i.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j "It is not by improving the candles that light bulbs were discovered" "Democracy is the dictatorship of active minor groups" "CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a poison. It is food for plants and source of oxygen, and thus, life for all of us. " Some of Marko's recent writing: h ://www.breitbart.com/bi - ovemment/20 l 7/06/16/america-first-climate/ SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000199-00004 h s://fricndsofscicncecal 0 a .word ress.com/2015/11/08/ rofessor-istvan-marko-sends-anotherlettcr-on-climatc-change-and-quebecs-alleged-climatc-leadership-to-mr-maros-sefcovic-vp-eucommission/ h And interviews from 2015 and 2016: h ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJM0joJKoY h s://www.thcnewamerican.com/tcch/environment/item/22232-at-anti-un-climatc-summitscicntist-slams-alarmist-religion Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000199-00005 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000199-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 8/9/2017 3:55:32 PM Sad news - Istvan Marko passed away on 7/31 Perhaps others saw this before, I had not. Joe From: Istvan Marko [mailto:istvan.marko@uclouvain.be] Sent: Wednesday,_ August_09_,_201_7 _10:35_ AM _________ ~ To: Joseph Bast;j Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : Subject: Sad news-·:·"REf-Pafrfcl<"Ffa"fil(offlfiEfCSSR Dear, as probably you know now, professor Istvan Marko passed away last Monday (07/31/2017). This email box will be closed soon. Can you try to stop sending mail. If you need more information : Lucaccioni Fabio,~~~~::::::::::.!.~~~~~!.!..!..:..!:!..:::!/ : First Head Chied Technician of professor Istvan Marko (since 2001 ). Pr. Dr. Istvan E. Marko Universite catholique de Louvain Laboratoire de Chimie Organique et Medicinale lnstitut IMCN, Unite MOST Batiment Lavoisier, Place Louis Pasteur 1 Bte L4.01 .02 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Office : +32 (0)10 478773 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000200-00001 Mobile · ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy • i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i "It is not by improving the candles that light bulbs were discovered" "Democracy is the dictatorship of active minor groups" "CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a poison. It is food for plants and source of oxygen, and thus, life for all of us. " Some of Marko's recent writing: h ://www.breitbart.com/bi - ovemment/20 l 7/06/16/america-first-climate/ h s://fricndsofscicncccal a .word ress.com/2015/11/08/ rofessor-istvan-marko-sends-anotherlettcr-on-climatc-change-and-quebecs-alleged-climatc-leadership-to-mr-maros-sefcovic-vp-eucommission/ h And interviews from 2015 and 2016: h ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJM0joJKoY SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000200-00002 h s://www.thcnewamerican.com/tcch/environment/item/22232-at-anti-un-climatc-summitscicntist-slams-alannist-religion Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000200-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 8/9/2017 2:02:35 PM Patrick Frank on the CSSR From: Patrick Frank [mailto:! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 1"CJ1T12:2l-""3."PM-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·; To: Joseph Bast Cc: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ] Subject: Re: Draft of Climate Assessment leaked by NYT Thanks, Joe. I downloaded a pdf copy of the draft from the NYT article you linked. The entire scientific credibility of the draft report lays in "Appendix C" where detection and attribution are discussed. They define detection as a change unlikely to occur 'naturally,' and attribution means assigning the cause of the change. This definition of change implies a physical theory of climate sufficiently complete to define natural variability, because a "change" is defined as an 'unnatural' variation. Likewise, attribution requires a physical theory of climate able to accurately predict the effects on the climate of any relevant energetic perturbation (a perturbation such as the forcing due to increased CO2). So, the entire credibility of the claims in the report depends strictly and rigorously on the existence and use of a relatively complete and accurate physical theory of climate. There is no such theory. For example, C2, "Fingerprint-based Methodologies" depends on "a model-generated response pattern." If the model-generated response pattern is subject to huge uncertainties (it is), then the response pattern has no particular physical meaning. Any fingerprint method based on that pattern also has no particular physical meaning. C3. Non-Fingerprint-based Methods, "compares observed and simulated time-series." Simulated time series are climate model outputs. The method again critically and fatally depends on unreliable models. Every method in Appendix C depends on model simulations for their basic validity. Model simulations have no known validity. Pat -----Original Message----From: Joseph Bast Sent: Aug 8, 2017 9:10 AM To: Subject: Draft of Climate Assessment leaked by NYT SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000201-00001 FYI: The New York Times published an unreleased draft of the report Monday. The 543-page report was written by scientists from 13 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It concludes that temperatures in the U.S. have risen sharply, by 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 150 years and that it is "extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate." "Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans," the report states. "Thousands of studies conducted by tens of thousands of scientists around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; disappearing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea level; and an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate changes." Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000201-00002 individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000201-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 8/8/2017 4:10:01 PM Draft of Climate Assessment leaked by NYT FYI: The New York Times published an unreleased draft of the report Monday. The 543-page report was written by scientists from 13 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It concludes that temperatures in the U.S. have risen sharply, by 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 150 years and that it is "extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate." "Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans," the report states. "Thousands of studies conducted by tens of thousands of scientists around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; disappearing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea level; and an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate changes." Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000202-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000202-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 8/7/2017 1 :35:15 PM How Rachel Carson Cost Millions of People Their Lives Willie Soon noticed this excellent piece: http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-rachel-carson-cost-millions-of-people-theirlives ?source=twi tter&via=desktop Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000203-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 8/5/2017 7:53:18 PM US submits formal notice of intent to withdraw from Paris agreement It's a beautiful thing. Joe https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017 /08/273050.htm Communication Regarding Intent To Withdraw From Paris Agreement Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC August 4, 2017 Today, the United States submitted a communication to the United Nations, in its capacity as depositary for the Paris Agreement, regarding the U.S. intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is eligible to do so, consistent with the terms of the Agreement. As the President indicated in his June I announcement and subsequently, he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers. The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security. We will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technology breakthroughs, and work with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000204-00001 many nationally determined contributions. The United States will continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings, including the 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP-23) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration. Such participation will include ongoing negotiations related to guidance for implementing the Paris Agreement. For further information, please contact Yoon Nam in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) at ==+====c...• Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000204-00002 recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000204-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 7/15/2017 4:50:17 PM Subsidies to fossil fuels are trivial compared to subsidies to wind and solar Friends, Many of you don't follow the economic side of the energy-climate change debate, and so might have missed the excellent piece by Dr. Roger Bezdek, below. Following his article is a list of articles he's written in the past year, with links to URLs. Roger just applied for a position on an EPA advisory board. Have you? Please do it today ... even if you aren't sure you have the time to serve, the first step is to "get on the list" and make the other side recognize your credentials and explain why they might not support your nomination. It's okay to nominate yourself... in fact, it's preferred. Joe h ://www.worldoil.com/ma azine/2017rune-2017 /columns/oil-and- as-in-the-ca itals World Oil June 2017, Vol 238 No. 5 Columns Oil and Gas in the Capitals Dr. Roger Bezdek, Contributing Editor It is that time again. A new administration in Washington, a new federal budget and its priorities being proposed, and tax reform being debated, have all joined to bring the subject of energy subsidies, yet again, to the forefront. As usual, the refrain is being heard that fossil fuels-especially "big oil"-are heavily and unfairly subsidized at the expense of underfunded renewables. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000205-00001 These subsidies are also drawing attention, as federal and state policymakers struggle to deal with energy incentives that are straining competitive electricity markets. For example: • Energy Secretary Rick Perry has ordered a study to assess how energy subsidies and policies are affecting baseload power generation, which may lead to reform of wind production tax credits. • In Washington, FERC recently sponsored a technical conference on the issue. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-lowa) has stated that it irritates him when people criticize "subsidies for one type of energy while disregarding market-distorting benefits provided to other sources." Indeed. So, how does the energy scorecard stack up? A stacked deck. As usual, conventional wisdom is wrong. There is a huge imbalance in federal incentives for the oil and gas industry, compared to renewables. However, the imbalance is strongly in favor of renewables and it is increasing rapidly. In a recently published study, we found that over the past several years, the imbalance of subsidies in favor of renewables over other energy technologies has become overwhelming (http://misi-net.com/publications/Energylncentives-0517 .pdf). This clearly contradicts the contention that federal incentives favor oil and gas at the expense of renewables. Fig. 1. Federal Incentives for oil, natural gas, and renewables, 2011-2016. As shown in Fig. 1, during the years 2011-2016, renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydro) has received $89 billion in federal incentives, which is: • Nearly four times as much federal incentives as for oil and natural gas, combined. • Nearly six times as much federal incentives as for oil. • Nearly ten times as much federal incentives as for natural gas. In fact, over this period, renewables received more than three times as much federal incentives as oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear, combined. So much for the contention that renewables are being "starved." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000205-00002 Of course, renewable energy advocates only prefer to classify hydro and geothermal as renewable sources, when it suits their purpose-such as to show how much renewable energy is being used in the U.S. Hydro provides over 90% of this renewable energy. However, somehow, federal support for hydro and geothermal is not supposed to be included in federal subsidies for "renewable energy." 80 70 60 t? iso "" ,~ ~40 0 :.:a g: 20 10 0 Oil Fig. 2. Federal Incentives for oil and natural gas compared to solar, wind, and biomass, 2011-2016. Accordingly, Fig. 2 excludes federal support for hydro and geothermal, and shows only subsidies for solar, wind and biomass. These figures show that during the 2011-2016 period, these renewable technologies received $78 billion, which is: • More than three times as much federal incentives as for oil and natural gas, combined. • More than five times as much federal incentives as for oil. • Nearly nine times as much federal incentives as for natural gas. Over the years 2011 through 2016, these three renewable energy technologies received three times as much federal incentives as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, combined. Thus, even excluding hydro and geothermal, renewables are being subsidized about three times as heavily as all fossil fuels and nuclear energy, combined. Notably, energy technologies provide very different contributions to the U.S. energy mix. Oil and gas provide over 61 % of U.S. energy needs, whereas wind and solar provide less than 3%. Thus, per unit of energy, renewables are massively over-subsidized, compared to oil and gas. The bottom line. So, what does all of this mean? Does it imply that the oil and gas industry receives too much federal support? Too little? Does it imply that renewable industries receive too much federal support? Or do they receive too little? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000205-00003 The information provided here implies none of this. The "optimal" level of federal support is an issue well outside the scope of this column. Nevertheless, the information presented here is important to remember, when we hear that renewable energy is being "starved" of federal funding compared to the oil and gas industry. wo Other recent writing by Dr. Roger Bezdek: I • PRESS RELEASE: New Study Clarifies Which Industries Benefit From Federal Energy Subsidies, Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, D.C., May 10, 2017. • Two Thirds of a Centu and 1 Trillion+ U.S. Ener, Incentives - Anal sis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development, 1950-2016. Report prepared for the Nuclear Energy lnstiture, May 2017, 63 pages. • "Surprising Energy Requirements of the Cannabis Industry: Problems and Potential Solutions PART II" Public Utilities Fortnightly, April 2017, pp. 38-42.* •"Surprising Energy Requirements of the Cannabis Industry: Implications for Utilities, Regulators, PART I" Public Utilities Fortnightly, March 2017, pp. 44-49.* • "Unsung Role of Fossil Fuels in the Miracle of U.S. Growth" Public Utilities Fortnightly, August 2016, pp. 26-31.* •"Essential Role of Fossil Fuels in Future Economic Growth" Public Utilities Fortnightly, September 2016, pp. 38-41,45.* •"The Jobs Impact of GHG Reduction Strategies in the USA" International Journal of Global Warming, Vol 6 No 4 (November 2014), pp. 380-401.* • "Economic and Job Forecasts for the Sustainable Energy Industries in the USA" revised version forthcoming in International Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 2016, 14 pages.* • Potential Economic Impacts in Tennessee of Reduced TVA Reliance on Coal. Report prepared for the Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy, February 2016, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000205-00004 83 pages. • Economic and Social Implications of Potential UN Paris 2015 Global GHG Reduction Mandates. July 2015, 86 pages. Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000205-00005 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 6/13/2017 9:46:17 PM Re: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview John, Heartland Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett wrote about your press release today. http:! /blog. heartland.org/2017 /06/pru itt-puts-america-first-at-g 7 -environment-summit/ The first day of our mini-summit on EPA issues went well. We re-convene tomorrow morning at 9 a.m., if you and any other EPA folks are interested in stopping by. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Jim Lakely Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 9:53 AM To: "Konkus, John" Subject: Re: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Thanks. Will do. And I certainly got my money's worth last night. Got to see Strasburg throw 100 pitches. It was in only 5 innings, but still ... SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000206-00001 Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: "Konkus, John" Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 9:36 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: Re: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Crazy game indeed. Nats bullpen is not good. Yes please share as you have indicated. Thank you! John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i !-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Jim Lakely wrote: Thanks, John. We got in just before 6 p.m. last night ... early enough that I was able to catch the Nats game last night. A wonderful park, and a crazy game. Is it OK if I relate the information in this email in my opening remarks to the group this afternoon? I'll only say it comes from a "friend" or "source" in EPA. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000206-00002 Might we see others from EPA today or tomorrow? Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: "Konkus, John" Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:54 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Jim: I hope your travel to Washington was uneventful. I will be covering a Senate Hearing for a POTUS nominee today so will regretfully be unable to attend today's session. However, I wanted to share a few points that I hope, in part, guide today's conversations: *The Science Integrity meeting this week was postponed by EPA because of Dr. Gifo's illness. We certainly all wish her health and a speedy recovery. In the meantime, this pause provides all involved the opportunity to coordinate further to ensure the rescheduled meeting is productive and constructive. More industry, more conservative and a broader group of voices will be involved. My understanding is that Dr. Grifo's illness is serious enough to cause this postponement, so we should all to be respectful of that. *Despite the intensity of the attacks from the left, EPA is managing massive changes and reforms. Barbs from the right hurt and hinder this progress. We need MORE support for our efforts. That will lead to much better working partnerships. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000206-00003 *Our movement and our cause as defined by the Trump Presidency are helped by this group when it recognizes and echoes our achievements including: >Getting beyond Paris. >Restructuring the EPA around a back to basics agenda. >Delivering a budget that would have been unthinkable under any other leadership. >Moving over 25 significant 0MB actions which is an amazing feat in this short amount of time, including: WOTUS, CPP, and multiple oil and gas rules, just to name a few. Thank you Jim. Let's connect later this afternoon. John From: Jim Lakely =====.1-.=..:..==.:....:===• Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:54 AM To: Konkus,John~h/~,~~=-=..:.'-'-====-:,,. Subject: RE: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G? - Preview Sure. Looking forward to the call. Do you think you and others at EPA would join us for our strategy meeting in DC on Tuesday and Wednesday? We had planned a program to help with messaging and communications leading up to the meeting Grife canceled. We're still going on with the meeting. It will be at the Capitol Skyline Hotel in SW, just a couple blocks north of Nationals Park. Here's the schedule: Tuesday, June 13-MC: Jim Lakely SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000206-00004 lrpmker Presentation T:alfiics:Steve Milloy Opening Remarks: What Needs to Be Done p.m. I Sl316nce:Jay Lehr How to Summarize the Scientific Debate in p.m. 30 minutes or Less Spk(hkerTraining: Veronica Tips for Effective Public Speaking plmrison llaw: David Schnare Inside and Outside EPA: How to Reform the p.m. Beast W@tfp-up:Joe Bast Closing remarks and adjourn p.m. Wednesday, June 14 - MC: Jim Lakely tf:alfiics:Myron Ebell Opening Remarks: What Needs to be Done am. ll 91316nce:Pat Michaels Where the Science Debate Stands Right a.m. Now E0olibmics: Kevin Demolishing the Social Cost of Carbon Juny.aratna Argument E~y Policy: Roger The Case for Fossil Fuels Jilm.dek $f,i:.Otker Training: Beverly Effective Public Speaking Strategies plallberg, District Media Group W@tfp-up:Joe Bast Closing remarks p.m. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John ========~::::..!., Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 9:44 AM To: Jim Lakely SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000206-00005 Subject: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Jim: I'll call you on this below. Looking for some echo help here ... United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 U.S. Formally Joins Communique, Reaching Consensus On Important Environmental Issues June 12, 2017 Bologna, Italy - Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the United States stands firm on its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has reset the conversation about climate change reflective of the new priorities of the Trump Administration and the expectations of the American people. "Respective of the importance to engage with longstanding allies and key international partners, we approached the climate discussions head on from a position of strength and clarity. We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress. Today's action of reaching consensus makes clear that the Paris Agreement is not the only mechanism by which environmental stewardship can be demonstrated. It also demonstrates our commitment to honest conversations, which are the cornerstone of constructive international dialogue, " said Administrator Scott Pruitt. While a party to the communique, the United States did not join the climate change sections, explicitly stating: We the United States of America continue to demonstrate through action, having reduced our CO2 footprint as demonstrated by achieving pre-1994 CO2 levels domestically. The United States will continue to engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment. Accordingly, we the United States do not join those sections of the communique on climate and MDBs, reflecting our recent announcement to withdraw and immediately cease implementation of the Paris Agreement and associated financial commitment. The United States and its G7 counterparts found common ground engaging in robust and constructive dialogue regarding other, equally important environmental issues. The United States joined consensus throughout the communique including the sections discussing resource efficiency, marine litter, and environmental policies and jobs. "The United States will continue to show leadership by offering action-oriented solutions to the world's environmental challenges. We have indicated a willingness to engage on an international stage that stands to greatly benefit from American ingenuity, innovation, and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000206-00006 advanced technologies. We have already demonstrated significant progress towards mitigating environmental problems and we will continue to develop these for the benefit of all nations," Administrator Pruitt said. BACKGROUND ... G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting's Press Release "We, the G7 Environment Ministers and high representatives, and European Commissioners responsible for environment and climate, met in Bologna on 11-12 June 2017. We were joined by heads and senior officials of International Organizations and by representatives of universities and firms." (G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting, Press Release, 06/12/17) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000206-00007 U.S. Environmental Protec1ion A9ency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue ~~or1hww,;f Washing1on. D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000206-00008 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 7/31/2017 3:09:00 PM Henderson and Cochrane: "Climate Change Isn't the End of the World" Today's Wall Street Journal Joe Climate Change Isn't the End of the World By David R. Henderson and John H. Cochrane July 30, 2017 4:24 p.m. ET [David was Morrie Goldman's and my classmate in the UCLA doctoral economics program. This is among, if not the best essay on the economics of "climate change" that I have ever seen.] Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is "real," both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby's policy agenda follows inexorably. It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis. To arrive at a wise policy response, we first need to consider how much economic damage climate change will do. Current models struggle to come up with economic costs consummate with apocalyptic political rhetoric. Typical costs are well below 10% of gross domestic product in the year 2100 and beyond. That's a lot of money-but it's a lot of years, too. Even 10% less GDP in 100 years corresponds to 0.1 percentage point less annual GDP growth. Climate change therefore does not justify policies that cost more than 0.1 percentage point of growth. If the goal is 10% more GDP in 100 years, pro-growth tax, regulatory and entitlement reforms would be far more effective. Yes, the costs are not evenly spread. Some places will do better and some will do worse. The American South might be a worse place to grow wheat; Southern Canada might be a better one. In a century, Miami might find itself in approximately the same situation as the Dutch city of Rotterdam today. But spread over a century, the costs of moving and adapting are not as imposing as they seem. Rotterdam's dikes are expensive, but not prohibitively so. Most buildings are SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000207-00001 rebuilt about every 50 years. If we simply stopped building in flood-prone areas and started building on higher ground, even the costs of moving cities would be bearable. Migration is costly. But much of the world's population moved from farms to cities in the 20th century. Allowing people to move to better climates in the 21st will be equally possible. Such investments in climate adaptation are small compared with the investments we will regularly make in houses, businesses, infrastructure and education. And economics is the central question-unlike with other environmental problems such as chemical pollution. Carbon dioxide hurts nobody's health. It's good for plants. Climate change need not endanger anyone. If it did-and you do hear such claims-then living in hot Arizona rather than cool Maine, or living with Louisiana's frequent floods, would be considered a health catastrophe today. Global warming is not the only risk our society faces. Even if science tells us that climate change is real and man-made, it does not tell us, as President Obama asserted, that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity. Really? Greater than nuclear explosions, a world war, global pandemics, crop failures and civil chaos? No. Healthy societies do not fall apart over slow, widely predicted, relatively small economic adjustments of the sort painted by climate analysis. Societies do fall apart from war, disease or chaos. Climate policy must compete with other long-term threats for always-scarce resources. Facing this reality, some advocate that we buy some "insurance." Sure, they argue, the projected economic cost seems small, but it could turn out to be a lot worse. But the same argument applies to any possible risk. If you buy overpriced insurance against every potential danger, you soon run out of money. You can sensibly insure only when the premium is in line with the risk-which brings us back where we started, to the need for quantifying probabilities, costs, benefits and alternatives. And uncertainty goes both ways. Nobody forecast tracking, or that it would make the U.S. the world's carbonreduction leader. Strategic waiting is a rational response to a slow-moving uncertain peril with fast-changing technology. Global warming is not even the obvious top environmental threat. Dirty water, dirty air and insect-borne diseases are a far greater problem today for most people world-wide. Habitat loss and human predation are a far greater problem for most animals. Elephants won't make it to see a warmer climate. Ask them how they would prefer to spend $1 trillion-subsidizing high-speed trains or a human-free park the size of Montana. Then, we need to know what effect proposed policies have and at what cost. Scientific, quantifiable or even vaguely plausible cause-and-effect thinking are missing from much advocacy for policies to reduce carbon emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "scientific" recommendations, for example, include "reduced gender inequality & marginalization in other forms," "provisioning of adequate housing," "cash transfers" and "awareness raising & integrating into education." Even if some of these are worthy goals, they are not scientifically valid, cost-benefit-tested policies to cool the planet. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000207-00002 Climate policy advocates' apocalyptic vision demands serious analysis, and mushy thinking undermines their case. If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power-waste disposal and the occasional meltdown-might be bearable. It follows that the costs of genetically modified foods and modern pesticides, which can feed us with less land and lower carbon emissions, might be bearable. It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake, adaptation or geoengineering should not be unmentionable. And it follows that symbolic, ineffective, political grab-bag policies should be intolerable. Mr. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. Mr. Cochrane is a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000207-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 7/29/2017 4:59:14 PM From CFACT: Negative reviews of "An Inconvenient Sequel" This is very useful, great job Marc! Joe • • • • • • • Bjorn Lomborg: 'Gore still t ying to scare you into saving the world' - 'Sequel Misses a Few Inconvenient Facts' Review: 'An Incoherent Sequel' - 'Anecdotes vs. data in Gore's follow-up to An Inconvenient Truth' 'Wh Peo le Like Al Gore Hate The World's Poor' - 'Ener is a reater threat. .. than climate disaster' Is Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Sequel' Any Good? Here's What The Reviews Say 'Al Gore's sequel opens - It's bunk' - 'Many on the Left are embarrassed by Gore' Fox News: Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Sequel' Meets with Skepticism, Even from Left Wash Times Features Climate Dep ton 'Inconvenient' Sequel: 'Gore is the gift that keeps on 9.lYiD.9..'. • • • • Vogue Mag's climate lament: 'It's Time to Officially Give Up on lvanka Trump' Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Sequel' Comes As His Dire Climate Predictions Fail To Materialize Scientists: Global Warming Will 'Prevent A Large Number Of Deaths' - By Reducing cold spells Flashback 2015: Harrison Ford on Climate Change: 'There Won't Be Any Damn People' Bjorn Lomborg: 'Gore still t ying to scare you into saving the world' - 'Sequel Misses a Few Inconvenient Facts' Posted: 28 Jul 2017 10:24 AM PDT By Bjorn Lomborg July 27, 2017 6:09 p.m. ET They say the sequel is always worse than the original, but Al Gore's first film set the bar pretty low. Eleven years ago, "An Inconvenient Truth" hyped global warming by relying more on scare tactics than science. This weekend Mr. Gore is back with "An Inconvenient[ ...]. Review: 'An Incoherent Sequel' - 'Anecdotes vs. data in Gore's follow-up to An Inconvenient Truth' Posted: 28 Jul 2017 10:13 AM PDT Gore is a smug man, and he perhaps reaches peak smugness in the new film when he is seen telling an audience: "Ten years ago [now eleven], when the movie An Inconvenient Truth came out, the single most criticized scene was an animated scene showing that the combination of sea-level rise and storm surge would[ ...]. 'Wh Peo le Like Al Gore Hate The World's Poor' - 'Ener threat. ..than climate disaster' Posted: 28 Jul 2017 09:59 AM PDT by Michael McGrady Manipulating people isn't something of which to be proud. Granted, marketing campaigns and large corporations know how to leverage the emotions of people. The same goes for politicians. However, at what cost? For Al Gore, the cost of manipulating people comes at the price that SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000208-00001 negates industrialization in some of the poorest places [ ...]. Is Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Sequel' Any Good? Here's What The Reviews Say Posted: 28 Jul 2017 09:54 AM PDT By Mathew Olson Jul 27 2017, 1:44 PM 3 diggsSaveShareTweet In 2006, director Davis Guggenheim and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" drew praise and won awards for how it framed climate change as an accessible,urgent issue. At the same time, it made Gore a more prominenttarget for climate change deniers. "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To [ ...]. 'Al Gore's sequel opens Gore' It's bunk'- 'Many on the Left are embarrassed by Posted: 28 Jul 2017 09:32 AM PDT July 28, 2017 by Craig Rucker Al Gore's new movie opens today. Leading off the article in The Washington Times: "Nobody is more excited about Friday's release of Al Gore's sequel to An Inconvenient Truth than climate skeptic Marc Morano, which comes as an ill wind for the movement to stop global warming, not to mention Mr. Gore. For[ ...]. Fox News: Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Sequel' Meets with Skepticism, Even from Left Posted: 28 Jul 2017 09:28 AM PDT. Wash Times Features Climate Depot on 'Inconvenient' Sequel: 'Gore is the gift that keeps on giving' Posted: 27 Jul 2017 08:07 PM PDT By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 27, 2017 Nobody is more excited about Friday's release of Al Gore's sequel to "An Inconvenient Truth" than climate skeptic Marc Morano, which comes as an ill wind for the movement to stop global warming, not to mention Mr. Gore. For months, Mr. Morano and his team have tracked the Democrat at [ ...]. Vogue Mag's climate lament: 'It's Time to Officially Give Up on lvanka Trump' Posted: 27 Jul 2017 07:15 PM PDT. Al Gore's 'InconvenientSequel' Comes As His Dire Climate PredictionsFail To Materialize Posted: 27 Jul 2017 06:50 PM PDT BY MICHAEL BASTASCH Former Vice President Al Gore's new global warming film debuts in select theaters Friday,just in time to see if his 2006 predictioncame true that humanitywould face a "true planetarycrisis" if nothingwas done to reduce greenhousegas emissions. It didn't, but that hasn't stopped Gore from going on a [ ...]. Scientists:Global Warming Will 'Prevent A Large Number Of Deaths' - By Reducingcold spells Posted: 27 Jul 2017 06:40 PM PDT SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000208-00002 MICHAEL BASTASCH The weight of evidence suggests global warming may, on net, end up saving lives through reducing the number and severity of cold spells, according to scientists. "Based upon real-world data, it is obvious that global warming is going to directly prevent a large number of deaths," Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Craig [ .. .]. Flashback 2015: Harrison Ford on Climate Change: 'There Won't Be Any Damn People' Posted: 27 Jul 2017 12:55 PM PDT By Aly Nielsen I December 11, 2015 10:03 AM EST Star Wars actor and nature-worshipper Harrison Ford claims that without a Paris agreement, the human race will go extinct. In a Dec. 9 interview with Australian Broadcasting Network's evening news show, 7 .30, host Leigh Sales asked Ford, "If the world is not able to come up with some sort of plan [at the [ .. .]. I SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000208-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 7/28/2017 10:49:40 PM Starting today, Gore's Climate Apocalypse Sequel Well, Willie Soon just spoiled my weekend by sending this link to al long (and excellent) article about Al Gore's movie debut starting today and the hyper-liberal propaganda tsunami taking place all next week: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/julia-seymour/2017 hype-gores-climate-apocalypse-sequel /07 /27 /14-billion-viacom-help- Here's what it's about: Gore is back in the spotlight again as his Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power arrives in selected theaters July 28, and nationwide on Aug. 4. It comes 11 years after he warned in his first film, the world only had 10 years before it would reach the "point of no return." Now he claims, there's still time. Viacom media outlets will "rally" to promote his climate agenda and new film the entire week of July 31, during "An Inconvenient Week," TV Week reported. Ten Viacom channels will focus programming on climate change that week including MTV, which will air "An Inconvenient Special" town hall panel with Gore Aug. 2. But Willie has the last word: Gore can pay everyone to see his movie and gives all the awards to himself and still will not change of the facts about the science of CO2---too bad for this lost soul Joe Joseph Bast SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000210-00001 Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000210-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 7/28/2017 7:44:49 PM Think Progress on Heartland's role in the Red Team Friends, Hillary Clinton's fake think tank, "Think Progress," ran this piece a couple days ago. Two little bits of inside baseball: the author refers to "leaked documents," which actually were stolen by Peter Gleick apparently with assistance and support by Think Progress. If Obama hadn't been in the White House at the time, they would have been prosecuted for aggravated identity theft and industrial espionage and Gleick and Podesta might still be in jail today. And Think Progress knows, as everyone knows, that Heartland received only $25,000 from the Kochs in the past 15 years and no funding at all from ExxonMobil since 2007. I don't even remember getting funding from the Chamber of Commerce and won't bother looking it up. And they want to be taken seriously? Gee, what losers. Joe https://thinkprogress.org/heartland-is-the-red-team-2d46cb6a 17ca EPA is asking a climate denier think tank for help recruiting its 'red team' EPA is reaching deep into the swamp. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000212-00001 The Environmental Protection Agency has asked the Heartland Institute, a D.C.-based rightwing think tank that denies the human causes of climate change, to help identify scientists to join the agency's so-called red team-blue team effort to "debate" the science of climate change, according to the Washington Examiner. The move is part of EPA Administrator Scott Prnitt's efforts to undercut established climate science within the agency. In an interview with Reuters earlier this month, Prnitt suggested the possibility of creating a red team to provide "a robust discussion" on climate science and determine whether humans "are contributing to [warming]." The Heartland Institute offers a model of what the EPA red team might look like. Their contrarian Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change-often referred to as a red team-publishes regular volumes of a report called "Climate Change Reconsidered." Heartland communications director Jim Lakely told the Washington Examiner the red team exercises to critique climate science are necessary "to critically examine what has become alarmist dogma rather than a sober evaluation of climate science for many years." But, as many scientists and experts have noted, the peer review process for scientific publications already requires and facilitates rigorous examination. For years, the Heartland Institute has spread misinformation about climate change and attacked the credibility of climate scientists. In 2012, the group launched a billboard campaign with the photographs of Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden, saying those men "still believe in global warming." Heartland's website at the time declared "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." More recently, the group announced I lans to send a report titled "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" to every K-12 teacher and college professor in America. The report incorrectly denies humans' contributions to rising global temperatures. Prnitt has adopted much of the misinformation that Heartland promotes. Since being confirmed, Prnitt has continued to question the science behind climate change and repeated climate denier talking points claiming that humans are not the main contributors to a warming planet. And Heartland experts have already had an active role in Trnmp's administration. Dan Simmons, currently an assistant to Energy Secretary Rick Perry, is still listed as an author on Heartland's website. Myron Ebell, a noted climate denier, led Trnmp's EPA transition team and has written several pieces opposing climate policy for Heartland. Heartland has received funding from several fossil fuel companies, though it no longer publicly discloses its funders. In 2012, leaked documents from the group showed the group received contributions from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others. It has also received funding from ExxonMobil to support work to SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000212-00002 refute the human causes of climate change. Last month, Heartland announced former Kansas congressman Tim Huelskamp will become president of the organization. During his political career, Huelskamp' s top donor was Koch Industries, and he received more than $250 000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. Koch Industries and the Koch family foundations have been one of the biggest funders of organizations that deny humans' role in causing climate change and oppose policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It remains to be seen who will staff the EPA's red team. NYU professor Steve Koonin, a scientist who formerly worked with both BP and the Obama administration, is reportedly the top contender. In 2014, Koonin wrote a Wall Street Journal op-cd detailing the ways in which climate science is not settled, which included the extent to which humans are causing climate change, a now-frequent talking point among Trump administration officials. In April, Koonin published another QP:_Cd in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting that a Red Team/Blue Team would be "a step toward resolving ... differing perceptions of climate science." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000212-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 7/28/2017 7:16:50 PM Nice piece on Red Team by Tom Harris h ://www.thc ostemail.com/20 I 7/07 /28/rcd-team-must-leavc-no-stonc-untumcd-chmatedcbate/ Red Team Must Leave No Stone Unturned in Climate Debate On Friday, July 28, 2017No Comment If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting! "IT AIN'T WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT GETS YOU INTO TROUBLE. IT'S WHAT YOU KNOW FOR SURE THAT JUST AIN'T SO." - MARK TWAIN by Tom Harris, Executive Director, [CSC ©2017 Jul. 28, 2017)- Al Gore expects us to believe that climate change science is settled. According to the former Vice President, scientists know, with a high degree of certainty, that our emissions of greenhouse gases, 82% of which is carbon dioxide (CO2) in U.S., is causing dangerous climate change. The solution, Gore tells us, is a dramatic reduction in our use of fossil fuels, the source of 86% of the world's energy supply. For Gore's position to be rational, there is a string of postulates that would have to be known to be true, or, at least very likely. The Trump administration's proposed 'red team-blue team' SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000214-00001 climate science exercise must carefully examine each of these suppositions. For essentially nothing in science, especially a discipline as immature and rapidly evolving as the study of climate, is a known fact. They are merely the opinions of experts based on their interpretations of the observations and their understandings of today's theory. And different experts have different opinions, even about issues that many scientists assume are settled. The government's climate science re-evaluation will undoubtedly address issues such as: • How much climate change is natural versus anthropogenic? • How useful are computer models for forecasting future climate? • Is sea level rise accelerating and, if it is, are our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to blame? • Is extreme weather increasing and, if so, is it due to our GHG emissions? • Is the ocean at risk of dangerous acidification due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels? • What are the biological benefits of rising CO2? The Obama administration never properly addressed these topics, choosing instead to follow the unfounded claims of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and activists such as Gore. So, thoroughly exploring these issues is indeed important. But scientists taking part in the red team-blue team debate must go deeper and reassess concepts erroneously considered to be known facts. For example, experts should be asked to assign probabilities to the following: • The Earth has warmed in the past century • 'Global temperature' is important • CO2 levels have risen since the 1800s • Human activities are the main cause of the assumed CO2 rise • CO2 is a warming agent Contrary to the assertions of the IPCC, none of these statements are actually known to be true. Each has a probability associated with it, and scientists' assessments of these probabilities varies greatly. Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball is an example of a wellqualified expert who would not assign a high probability to the accuracy of any of the above statements. For instance, Ball explains that, while it is claimed that there has been a 0.7-degree Celsius temperature rise in the past century, it is not really possible to know this. "The best weather stations in the world, in terms of the density of the network, the quality of the instruments, and the monitoring of the sites, is in the United States," said Ball. "But, even there, meteorologist Anthony Watts'-"'--"'-'---'--"'""--"'--"'--"""-"-'--'= sh1dy showed that only 7.9% of existing stations achieved accuracies better than +/-1 °C. So how can you claim that a 0.7 degree increase over I 00 years has any meaning whatsoever?" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000214-00002 In October 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office==='-=---'---'---""-"--"-"----"'---"--=== and concluded that the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) surface temperature record is unreliable. This then calls into question global temperature trends, since USHCN data is a major contributor to worldwide temperature determinations. Also, consider the sparsity of the available temperature data. Ball explains that there is very little data for the 70% of Earth's surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions and the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the nonsensical claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, cities with very different climates. Yet according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented. Ball also notes that the official surface temperature measurements are made by sensors located several feet above the surface. But it is the temperature right at the surface that is important to agriculture. And that surface temperature is typically very different from the official measurements collected higher up. So we really don't know how the most important surface temperatures are changing. In other words, Ball asserts that the made by IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group I co-chair Dr. Thomas Stocker that "warming in the climate system is unequivocal," is nonsense. In the final analysis, it is no more meaningful to calculate an average temperature for a whole planet than it is to calculate the average telephone number in a phone book. Temperature, like viscosity and density, is not something that can be meaningfully averaged. "Global temperature" is merely a statistical construct that is, generally speaking, of little use. Consider for example, a scenario in which half the planet warmed by ten degrees and half cooled by the same amount. There would be no change in the 'average temperature' yet weather patterns would become cataclysmic. What matters is what happens in the regions where humans, plants, and animals live, not some imaginary global average. While many people assume that CO2 concentrations have risen in recent centuries, some scientists dispute this. Ball said, "The CO2 level from pre-industrial times was completely manipulated to show a steady rise from 270 ppm to the current 400 ppm. Scientifically valid chemical measurements of 19th century CO2 levels in excess of those of today were simply ignored." Ball further explains that, if there has been a rise in CO2 levels, it may not be as a result of human activities. It could simply be a result of outgassing from the oceans as they warmed due to solar changes. Ball points out that the total estimated human contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations is less that the uncertainty in the estimate of CO2 emitted from the oceans, so detecting the human contribution is not currently possible. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000214-00003 Finally, Ball points out, "They claim that CO2 is a warming agent but they consistently reduce the amount of warming it supposedly causes. I conclude that CO2 is a cooling agent, especially in the upper atmosphere, which they say is most significant level from a climate change perspective." Of course, there are scientists who do not agree with Ball on these fundamental issues, but even they cannot claim to be 100% sure of their position. The red team-blue team participants must leave no stone unturned and assign probabilities to even these, the most basic assumptions of the climate change debate. For, as Mark Twain said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition '-'--'---'--'---'-'---'-='--'-=========-'--'=====1 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000214-00004 To: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Wed 7/26/2017 9:08:48 PM Is the Red Team a good idea? Friends, Since some of you asked ... In his essay below, David Schnare raises concerns regarding the "Red Team - Blue Team" approach. No doubt there is wisdom in and hard-bought experience behind what he says, but. .. * EPA commissions and produces a lot of its own science and research on CO2 and other matters. It's difficult to believe "the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (GCRC) of the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS) of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)" is the first or last word on whether EPA regulates CO2 as a pollutant. We can fight for control over the GCRC/CENRS/NSTC while also waging a battle on a larger playing field. * The adversarial Red Team-Blue Team model is appropriate and necessary for the climate change debate because one side (the Blue Team) stopped testing and rejecting hypotheses using empirical data a long time ago, and now just sponsors studies supporting its pre-determined conclusions while ignoring/silencing/demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. In order for science to advance, we need a Red Team. *'--'--'---=--"'-constitutes a legitimate and highly qualified Red Team. It isn't affiliated with EPA, and for the past eight years has been vilified and marginalized by Obama/EPA/media. With Trump in the White House, that vilification will end, our insights and our friends will penetrate EPA, and we will win the debate. Doing this with a formal Red Team - Blue Team procedure is only one way this change can take place. Others will be tried, too. * I like the notion of EPA creating a Red Team to ask a series of tough questions about SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000216-00001 climate change science, to create a series of white papers and perhaps surveys of "informed opinion," to form a scientific basis as well as build public support for the agency changing its tune on climate change. Whether or not there are televised debates etc. is up to others, we don't all need to agree on that. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. From: Craig ldso [mailto:cidso@co2science.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:46 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: RE: David Schnare on why he left EPA, Red Team, etc. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000216-00002 Joe, I find myself in agreement on many of David's points in his article below. There are some good arguments against a red/blue team approach that do indeed make me worry about its effectiveness in changing policy. It would seem to me that clearing out the USGCRP would indeed be a higher priority and provide longer-lasting fruit. Imagine the implications of a new USGCRP report coming out that reverses course over its predecessors and that is more in line with the NIPCC findings. Would that not do more damage to the alarmist cause than a red/blue side show by the EPA? I am curious to know your thoughts on the Red/Blue team approach. Are you for it? Against it? -Craig From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org1 Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:27 AM Subject: David Schnare on why he left EPA, Red Team, etc. "The following article was first published in Inside EPA on July 25, 2017 and is reprinted here with permission of the author." Guest Perspective Schnare, Former Transition fficial, n His Departure, EPA Climate Science Review July 25, 2017 Editor's Note: David Schnare, the former EPA transition official who wrote this article, left the agencv earlier this year over concerns about infighting among administration appointees and Administrator Scott Pruitt's alleged lack of engagement. In it, his first since departing the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000216-00003 agency, he discusses his reasons for leaving and his views on EPA 's upcoming climate science review. The views expressed here are his. It is a high honor to be asked to serve on a presidential transition team -- an even higher one to be asked to go back into an agency into a major role. The Presidential Personnel Office, with the full support of Transition Team Leader and Senior White House Advisor, Don Benton, asked me to act as, and then become permanently appointed as the Assistant Deputy Administrator, a position Administrator Pruitt described as the Chief Operating Officer for the Agency. A few days before the White House officially made that assignment, I resigned. As a 34 year-veteran of EPA, a PhD environmental scientist and attorney who retired from the Agency in 2011, President Trump's team asked me to go into the agency in a leadership role implementing the EPA transition plan. Based on discussions with the entire EPA transition team, I had drafted approximately 80% of the agency transition plan. Why resign and why explain why? My commitment to the President and his agenda is ongoing, despite my resignation. Over 20 news organizations have asked me to spell out why I left, and previously I have not as I saw no value to President Trump in doing so. However, telling this brief tale deflates attention on my resignation and allows attention to go to an important issue that demands attention from within and outside the Agency -- specifically, how to address the highly controversial issue of climate and the human influence on climate. In simple terms, Mr. Pruitt and I simply never meshed. Every agency or departmental transition team confronted two challenges: rapid implementation of the President's agenda and team-building with the career managers. The EPA transition team faced extreme antagonism by some lower level employees within the Agency and open hostility from the initial Pruitt appointments. My job was to form a working bridge between the Pruitt team and the career professionals while ensuring the President's transition plan moved forward. In the final call, I was unable achieve this mission. Bill Ruckelshaus, the Agency's first and fifth Administrator, recently discussed why senior government officials resign, something he did twice. He explained that it comes down to a question of fundamental principles. Where the appointee is being forced to compromise his core principles, he has no choice but to resign. In my case, Mr. Pruitt and I had basic irreconcilable differences in management approach and professional ethics. Because, in the opening weeks of his tenure, Mr. Pruitt chose not to engage closely with the senior career managers, my function was to bring time- and policy-sensitive issues to his attention and brief him on those issues. Each time, I suggested he meet with the appropriate career managers so as to ensure he had detailed answers to any questions he might have. He rarely did so, relying instead on the extremely short briefs I provided at his morning staff meetings. This problem came to a head at a meeting in which I gave him notice that a delegated EPA authority was going to be used by a career manager on a sensitive issue, an action required by law. I advised him on the Agency's options and he rejected them all. Mr. Pruitt then ordered a SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000216-00004 different course of action, one I firmly believe is not permitted under law. He left it to me or his chief of staff to direct the career staff to implement the action. In my view, this violated our oaths of office and placed the career staff in an untenable position -- one from which I could not extract them, whether I stayed or resigned. The next week I was ordered to no longer meet with Mr. Pruitt on policy issues, having already been directed to not participate in either personnel or budget matters. Thus, I could not do the job the President asked me to do. Under those conditions, there was but one choice and I made it. Revisiting Climate Science In my commitment to President Trump's agenda, I have identified a structural problem that does not seem to be understood by EPA appointees or White House policy staff I came to Inside EPA to highlight this problem as it is the loudest megaphone into the Agency and within the environmental policy community. It needs to be raised now and strongly, or the President will lose the opportunity to carry out one of his key election promises: reexamination of climate science and how that science informs policy-making that has vast economic and political implications. There are three problems involving climate science that many others within the Administration do not understand: (i) The law does not assign responsibility for assessing the significance of greenhouse gas emissions to EPA; (ii) the law does not permit the federal government to assume the science is settled; and, (iii) the Red team -- Blue team concept simply does not apply within the scientific community. I opt for the Red, White and Blue team approach, with a heavy dash of Karl Popper thrown in. Who is responsible for assessing climate science? The Subcommittee on Global Change Research (GCRC) of the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability of the National Science and Technology Council was established to plan and coordinate the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), as described in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606). The USGCRP provides for development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated research program, which assesses, predicts and responds to human-induced and natural processes of global change. Among its eleven functions is the duty to conduct a periodic scientific assessment which addresses the following: (1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings; (2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and (3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000216-00005 The staff at the Office of Science and Technology Policy are currently engaged in writing the statutorily mandated 2017 "National Climate Assessment." This is a legacy of the Obama administration, one being done as quickly and quietly as possible by the Obama holdovers ensconced at OSTP. The Assessment draws on the science as discussed in another statutorily mandated report, the "Research Plan." Both the Assessment (currently in draft) and the Research Plan parrot an alarmist view of the "settled" science. The Research Plan was published days before President Trump took office. Both the Research Plan and the Assessment need to go back to ground zero and be redone, and a properly appointed OSTP leadership and staff have all the authority and tools needed to reexamine the science. How do we know a redux is needed? The National Academy of Science (well known to lean toward climate alarmism), said so. Among many recommendations, the Academy stated a need for "expanding the discussion of specific topic areas, to better reflect the full breadth of literature and understanding of the subject" and "Wherever possible, figures depicting observed trends should indicate the statistical significance of those trends, or confidence intervals." A close reading of the NAS review indicates the GCRC effort reeks of failure to employ the basics of science as encapsulated in the Information Quality Act (IQA) guidelines that apply to federal agencies, including the White House offices. EPA provides but one of fourteen members to GCRC and its representative is not currently the chairman of the committee nor does it provide the executive director. OSTP and its GCRC have the authority and resources to conduct a reexamination of the science. EPA can play, but it isn't in charge and doesn't have the authority under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to unilaterally undertake this effort. Red Team -- Blue Team Silliness. The latest riff on climate has been the suggestion of using a Red team -- Blue team approach. As eminent a scientist as Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist who served as Obama's undersecretary for science at the Energy Department, has endorsed the idea. He has been accused of setting up a strawman argument regarding whether climate science is "settled. Mr. Pruitt has indicated he wants Dr. Koonin to be the lead in a Red Team -- Blue Team effort. I can understand that an attorney like Mr. Pruitt might be comfortable with an adversarial process; or that legislators (read politicians) would think this an idea worthy of use. It's an idea that grows out of ignorance of the scientific process or science itself. Red teaming is a practice coming out of the national security community. According to them, it is the practice of viewing a problem from an adversary or competitor's perspective. Those of us who have served in the military understand the value of having one's strategic and tactical approaches challenged by opposing forces. That, however, is not how science works. Science is supposed to be done by individuals "disinterested" in the outcome of their observations. It is not supposed to be a political blood sport. Science consists of making observations and attempting to "falsify" hypotheses based on observation. Where there are conflicting hypotheses, scientists test each. Often, each is falsified and each hypothesis has to be tossed. Lately, "science" has foundered on the rocks of academic SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000216-00006 imperialism. There is less of a division between "alarmists" and "skeptics" than between those whose future (read funding) is risked by climate skepticism (the alarmists) and those who need not worry about such support (the skeptics). The risk of loss of funding, and consequently loss of academic promotion and standing, is real and imposing. Non-transparency in academic science has exacerbated this problem. When the public, and especially the technologically and scientifically literate public, can't look deeply into the practices of scientists, there is no pressure to maintain the ethics of science. What is needed is the convening of a scientific reevaluation of climate science, done in the most public fashion. As I discussed with senior EPA leadership before I left, webcasting a detailed discussion of critical issues, with the opportunity for viewers to pose appropriate technical questions during the discussion, would allow for the transparency and the depth needed to ensure a full rendering of our understanding of greenhouse gases on climate. It would also educate the 90 percent of U.S. citizens who admit they don't know enough about climate change to have a view on the subject. One additional element would be needed. All points of view and kinds of expertise need to be at the table. In the climate community, this has been nearly impossible to achieve, the animosity and professional fear within the community being what it is. A simple solution is to require any federal grantee or grant applicant to agree to participate in these sessions. You want to feed at the federal trough, you have to be willing to engage with the federal government processes, including these kinds of scientific enterprises. What about Mr. Prnitt' s idea of televising a climate debate? It's an extension of failure to understand how science works. Strnctured debates are too limiting. If televised, they are too short. If a continuing loop of "Red Team argument," then "Blue Team argument," it is inefficient. The depth needed to be examined cannot be reached in a televised debate. It will in a scientific conclave specifically intended to reach such depths and provide for discussion rather than antagonistic debate. Finally, the fundamental questions that require reconsideration in light of evolving scientific observations include the following and should be the starting point for a full redraft of the Climate Science Special Report: What empirical data (a) characterize climate conditions, changes in those conditions and normal variability in those conditions; and, (b) meet IQA criteria for quality, objectivity, utility and integrity? What do !QA-qualified data tell us about how the climate has changed? Using only !QA-qualified empirical data, (a) how sensitive is climate to GHGs, (b) how much of that sensitivity is attributable to human activity, and (c) what is the utility of these data as the basis for policy-making? What methods for prediction of changes in climate conditions meet criteria necessary to allow SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000216-00007 policy reliance on such forecasting, criteria such as those mandated in financial forecasting? What !QA-qualified empirical data characterize the beneficial and harmful consequences to human health and welfare of qualified climate change forecasts? IfEPA has a role to play, it is as a member of the GCRC. On climate issues, Mr. Prnitt will best serve this nation in following the law, implementing the climate statute and relying on competent scientists to follow fundamental scientific principles. Recognizing the challenges of a very large government with many departments and agencies, now is the time for leadership from the top. The President needs to appoint a head of OSTP and he or she needs to reorganize and recommit to a proper examination of climate science. -- David Schnare Endnotes 1 See, htt s://www.whitehouse. ov/sites/whitehouse. ov/files/os /SGCR Charter. df. 2 See, "Review of the Draft Climate Science Special Report" at _http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Review-Draft-Clim a te-Science/24 712. 3 htt ://time.com/3445231/climate-denier-settled-science/. David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000216-00008 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 7/13/2017 9:55:52 PM Why Scientists Disagree Response Update Friends, At the end of June we finished mailing nearly 300,000 copies of the second edition of Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, by Craig Idso, Robert carter, and S. Fred Singer, along with a DVD titled "History of Climate Change in Greenland" featuring Willie Soon and David Legates. Most copies went to science teachers and professors, but others went to corporate CEOs, elected officials, the 31,000 signers of the Petition Project, and other allies. Every book and DVD was accompanied by a postage-paid reply card. Lennie Jarratt, on the Heartland staff, tabulated more than 2,000 replies and briefly reports the responses in his email below. Joe From: Lennie Jarratt Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 4:42 PM To: Joseph Bast; Veronica Harrison; Gwendalyn Carver; Diane Bast; Timothy Benson; Jim Lakely Subject: WSDAGW Response Update I wanted to let everyone know our final response totals on sending WSDAGW to teachers/professors. Positive Responses - 45 percent Negative Responses - 55 percent Total Responses - 2026 By email - 9 percent SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000217-00001 By phone - 4 percent By reply cards - or 62 percent By online survey - 26 percent Positive response breakdown Comment Only - 79 percent (includes those who donated) Requested more books - 13 percent Requested a speaker - 3 percent Requested more books and a speaker - 3 percent Sent Donation - 69% Lennie Project Manager for Transforming Education The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone: 312/377-4000 Cell: 84 7/302-3985 Fax: 312-277-4122 E-mail: ljarratt@hcartland.org @LennicJarratt @SchoolRefonn SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000217-00002 Support Heartland today! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000217-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Edward Hudgins[EHudgins@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Mon 6/12/2017 1:55:57 PM [SPAM] A lot to do: How should we respond to these bitter-enders? Ed Hudgins, Heartland's new research director, sent these links to stories about a county and a mayor refusing to accept President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty: Kamenctz Commits Baltimore Coun to Paris Climate A cement Mayor Megan Bary Says The Constitution Does Not Apply Herc in Nashville: 'I Am Committed to Meeting the Goals of the Paris Agreement ... Even if the President Is Not' No doubt there are hundreds more. Joe From: Joseph Bast Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 10:11 AM Subject: How should we respond to these bitter-enders? Importance: High Friends, The always-alert Fred Singer sent this link, www.wearestillin.com and asked whether and how we ought to respond. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000218-00001 The webpage has a long list of businesses, investors, government officials, university leaders, and others who apparently have pledged to do what they can to comply with the goals of the Paris Climate Treaty (and presumably the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era executive orders and unconstitutional regulations) despite Trnmp's decision to re-set U.S. climate change and energy policies. The news release issued on 6/5, which appears (oddly) at the bottom of the 45-page website, reads as follows: We Are Still In Press Release - 06/05/2017 Leaders in U.S. Economy Say "We Are Still In' on Paris Climate Agreement Climate Declaration Represents 120 Million Americans and $6.2 Trillion of the U.S. Economy Washington DC - A grand total of 1,219 governors, mayors, businesses, investors, and colleges and universities from across the U.S. or with significant operations in the U.S., representing the broadest cross section of the American economy yet assembled in pursuit of climate action, today declared their intent to continue to ensure the U.S. remains a global leader in reducing carbon emissions. Together, these leaders are sending a strong signal to the international community and the 194 other parties to the Paris Agreement about the continued commitment of the U.S. to ambitious action on climate change absent leadership at the federal level. In the aggregate, the signatories are delivering concrete emissions reductions that will help meet America's emissions pledge under the Paris Agreement. Signatories include leaders from 125 cities, 9 states, 902 businesses and investors, and 183 colleges and universities. Participating cities and states represent 120 million Americans and contribute $6.2 trillion to the U.S. economy, and include Oregon and cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Houston as well as smaller cities like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Dubuque, Iowa. A mixture of private universities, state schools and community colleges, both small and large, have added their institutions to the statement. In total the undersigned businesses and investors account for a total annual revenue of $1.4 trillion and include over 20 Fortune 500 companies, including Apple, eBay, Gap Inc., Google, Intel, Microsoft, and Nike, in addition to hundreds of SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000218-00002 small businesses, have also signed the statement. The statement calls "The Trump administration's announcement [one that] undermines a key pillar in the fight against climate change [and a move which is] out of step with what is happening in the United States." The signers all understand that the Paris Agreement is a blueprint for job creation, stability and global prosperity and that accelerating the United States' clean energy transition is an opportunity - not a liability - to create jobs, spur innovation, promote trade and ensure American competitiveness. By declaring that "we are still in," the signatories are putting the best interests of their constituents, customers, students and communities first while assuring the rest of the world that American leadership on climate change extends well beyond the federal government. In addition to this statement, since President Trump's announcement to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, 211 Climate Mayors have adopted the Paris Agreement goals for their cities, 13 Governors have formed the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance, and 17 governors have released individual statements standing by Paris. Today's statement embraces this rapidly growing movement of subnational and civil society leaders, by announcing that not only are these leaders stepping forward, they are stepping forward together. My initial reaction to things like this is always: how can we use jiu-jitsu and tum this to our advantage? (Some people mistaken this for optimism ... I am not, by nature, an optimistic person.) We are entering the final stages of victory over the global warmists, where we track down the bitter-enders in their Cu Chi tunnels and take them out (figuratively ... for we are a nonviolent movement). These losers just gave us the membership list of their club, and appear likely to continuously update it for us. This is a tactical error on their part and great news for us, if we can capitalize on it. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000218-00003 If I had unlimited time and resources, I would do the following: * launch four boycott websites, one each for cities, states, businesses and investors, and colleges and universities, explaining how stupid and hurtful these civic and business "leaders" are, how their action hurts their cities/businesses etc. and the nation, and calling on tourists, consumers, investors, and parents (depending on the type of entity) to boycott these establishments until and unless they publicly retract their pledges; * market the four websites in print and online publications that target tourists, consumers, investors, and parents looking for colleges for their children; just knowing such a campaign is underway will dampen enthusiasm by other political and business leaders for signing up, and may prompt some leaders to withdraw from the group; * use a combination of web research and phone calls to contact everyone on the list, let them know what we are doing, and add their contact information to the websites along with their city council members, CEOs, VPs of Sales and Marketing, deans, chairmen, head of customer relations, etc., etc.; use the websites to urge people to contact all of them, repeatedly, urging them to retract the proclamation; * identify "friendlies" in every city, state, business, etc. who can stand up and say, e.g., "I live in Tempe, Arizona and I oppose this declaration and am working to have it retracted. Join me!" Those contacts would work with local and national allies - starting with conservative advocacy groups but them moving well beyond those centers of support - to build lists of people calling for repeal of the declarations by elected officials, business leaders, and college leader in their cities or states; * report on the websites anyone who has done anything to boycott a city, state, business, etc., and any communication anyone has with the targets regarding this declaration, e.g., "Today I moved our planned staff retreat from Tempe, Arizona, where we've held it every year since 2014, to Arlington Heights, Illinois, because Tempe is anti-energy, anti-jobs, and anti-freedom on the climate change issue. We will return to Tempe only when Mayor Mark Mitchell, or his successor, or the city council publicly revokes Mitchell's ridiculous 'We Are Still In' declaration." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000218-00004 * publicize anything anyone on this list does that involves the use of fossil fuels, or any subsidies or (in the case of colleges and universities) grants they receive to support alternative energy or producing fake climate change studies and other crony capitalist schemes, or anything else that reveals hypocrisy or failure to live up to their pledge - e.g., why does Mayor Mark Mitchell drive an SUV? Do his homes have solar panels? What is his monthly utility bill? Do renewable energy companies donate to his campaigns? and * put a full time person or two on creating "Google alerts" for every individual person's name reported at -'--'---'-!...-'..!...;5:!.J.'~J:f~====and tasked with placing in the comment fields of every news and commentary article mentioning them criticism based on their endorsement of this proclamation, e.g., when Tempe Mayor Mark Mitchell cuts a ribbon for a new Dunkin Donuts, post: "Tempe Mayor Mark Mitchell is a bitter-ender willing to sacrifice the well-being of everyone in Tempe on the altar of 'global warming.' He received thousands of dollars in campaign cash from Solyndra before it went bankrupt. He and handful of other deluded liberals signed the ridiculous "We Are Still In" declaration that is costing Tempe jobs and taxpayers millions of dollars. Go to_ and tell Mitch and the city council to retract the resolution." Now, that would cost quite a lot to do, so instead we'll probably do our usual snarky op-ed or two and move on ... Fred Singer had a shorter list of things we could do: I KEEP TRACK OF PROGRESS OF THE 1200 ENTITIES 2. PLOT THEIR AVERA GE 3. SUGGEST A VARIETY OF PENALTIES for missing targets [like -- forfeit moneys in escrow] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000218-00005 What do you think we should do? Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000218-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 6/12/2017 1:43:52 PM United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 This is more excellent news. The title of our 12th International Conference on Climate Change, held in March, was "Resetting Climate Policy." Coincidence? Joe From: Lincoln Ferguson (EPA) [mailto:ferguson.lincoln=epa.gov@cmail19.com] On Behalf Of Lincoln Ferguson (EPA) Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 8:39 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 U.S. Formally Joins Communique, Reaching Consensus On Important Environmental Issues June 12, 2017 Bologna, Italy - Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the United States stands firm on its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has reset the conversation about climate change reflective of the new priorities of the Trump Administration and the expectations of the American people. "Respective of the importance to engage with longstanding allies and key international partners, we approached the climate discussions head on from a position of strength and clarity. We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress. Today's action of reaching consensus makes clear that the Paris Agreement is not the only mechanism by which environmental stewardship can be demonstrated. It also demonstrates our commitment to honest conversations, which are the cornerstone of constructive international dialogue, " said Administrator Scott Pruitt. While a party to the communique, the United States did not join the climate change sections, explicitly stating: We the United States of America continue to demonstrate through action, having reduced our CO2 footprint as demonstrated by achieving pre-1994 CO2 levels domestically. The United States will continue to engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment. Accordingly, we the United SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000219-00001 States do not join those sections of the communique on climate and MDBs, reflecting our recent announcement to withdraw and immediately cease implementation of the Paris Agreement and associated financial commitment. The United States and its G7 counterparts found common ground engaging in robust and constructive dialogue regarding other, equally important environmental issues. The United States joined consensus throughout the communique including the sections discussing resource efficiency, marine litter, and environmental policies and jobs. "The United States will continue to show leadership by offering action-oriented solutions to the world's environmental challenges. We have indicated a willingness to engage on an international stage that stands to greatly benefit from American ingenuity, innovation, and advanced technologies. We have already demonstrated significant progress towards mitigating environmental problems and we will continue to develop these for the benefit of all nations," Administrator Pruitt said. BACKGROUND ... G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting: Communique "We, the G7 Environment Ministers and high representatives, and European Commissioners responsible for environment and climate, met in Bologna on 11-12 June 2017. We were joined by heads and senior officials of International Organizations and by representatives of universities and firms." (G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting, 06/12/17) U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue l\lorthwest Washington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000219-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 7/13/2017 4:55:19 PM Edmund Contoski blog on global warming A nice overview of the history of the global warming scare since 1988- a nice antidote to the "climate porn" being pushed by the NYT and others of late: h .--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· . You can reach Ed Contoski at!___ Ex.__ 6_- _Personal_ Pri_vacy __ j Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000220-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Joseph Bast Sun 6/11/2017 10:16:53 PM Trump Names BP Oil Spill Lawyer, Climate Policy Foe as Top DOJ Environment Attorney lnsideClimate News Sent: Subject: I Well, this sure sounds like good news ... https ://ins idecl imatenews. org/n ews/06062017 /tru mp-na mes-b p-oi I-spiII-lawyer -climate-pol icy-foe-top-dojen vi ron men t-attorney I don't recall crossing paths with Jeffrey Bossert Clark, but I recall the brief he apparently helped write for the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, and appreciate the link: https://www .edf.org/sites/default/files/09-1322-2011-10-17-%20I ndustry-Pet-Reply-Brief.pdf Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000221-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 7/13/2017 1:42:01 PM Blue team phobia Roger Bezdek's point, made below, is right on target. This E&E News/ Climatewire story is almost too funny to be true, proof (if more was needed) that environmentalists have been drinking their own Kool-aide for so long they can't imagine having to defend their views in public, certainly not on TV! They are "perplexed," "at a loss" over EPA Admin. Pruitt's invitation to debate the science with climate realists. The alarmists fear if the public hears the truth (that "The degree to which human influence is impacting the climate, well, that's an open scientific debate") then it won't believe in the left's apocalyptic predictions about the future, and so embrace its agenda. That's not because the public is stupid. It's because they are smart. Joe From: Roger Bezdek [mailto:rbezdek@misi-net.com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 8:19 AM To: Joseph Bast Cc: 'Tim Huelskamp'; Jim Lakely Subject: Blue team phobia Joe: This is almost hilarious. It is a slam dunk, the evidence in overwhelming, but they are afraid to debate. Roger SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000222-00001 EPA Scientists see proposed climate debates as a trap Published: Thursday, July 13, 2017 Climate scientists are perplexed by U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's plans to challenge their work. They see it as a trap with no escape: Participating in the critique would lend the minority of researchers who question mainstream climate science an oversized microphone. But refusing the invitation to debate their findings could give the impression they're hiding something or leave skeptics' assertions unopposed. Pruitt's proposal to launch a "red team, blue team" exercise to debate climate science is causing "collective head scratching," said Kei Koizumi, a visiting scholar in science policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Personally, I'm still at a loss," Koizumi said. "If an AAAS member came and said, 'I was invited to serve on an EPA commission, what should I do?' I'm not sure what the answer would be. I'm not sure whether AAAS would have an answer." Pruitt acknowledges the planet is warming but says he questions how much humans are contributing and whether climate change is an "existential threat." Scientists say it's hard to respond to Pruitt when he puts climate change in such black-and-white terms. They hesitate to assign specific values to humanity's role because the numbers would change year to year and be hard to pin down with complete accuracy. But they largely agree humans are the main source of global warming. They worry that central message might get lost in debates. "The degree to which human influence is impacting the climate, well, that's an open scientific debate. Whether human activities are contributing to climate change - that is not really a scientific debate anymore," Koizumi said. "It's unclear what this EPA exercise is trying to get at. Is it trying to quantify better the human influence on climate change? Our indications are that the answer is no." Must-see TV? Scientists have been reeling since Pruitt suggested the "red team, blue team" process and later said he wanted to televise the debate (Climatewire, June 30). "You cannot fight a lie live on television," said Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist and the director of climate science at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000222-00002 Framing the issue as a debate "gives us pause," she said. "It leaves the public thinking they don't know what they're talking about, stay calm and carry on." Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under President Obama, said Pruitt should stop acting like "the coach of a debate team." "If he wants to learn more about climate science, I suggest he ask his career staff," she told E&E News. "If he doesn't feel comfortable hanging around with them, he could read the latest endangerment finding for a robust summary of the science. That would get him up to speed with the 97 percent of climate scientists and the overwhelming majority of Americans who understand that it's time to stop denying or questioning the science and start taking action to protect our kids' future." Environmental advocates mocked Pruitt's suggestion. "What is Pruitt thinking, something like 'The Apprentice'? Or more like 'Game of Thrones'? Winter is (not) coming," said David Doniger, director of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "A genuine process of scientific peer review would definitely not be 'must-see TV,"' he added. Tom Reynolds, who led EPA's communications shop during the Obama administration, said televised climate debates would be the equivalent of "the Scopes Trial meets 'Survivor."' Susan Joy Hassol, director of the nonprofit Climate Communication, said, "Would you have a debate on whether smoking causes lung cancer or whether HIV causes AIDS?" 'Outside the box' But beyond enraging the climate experts, Pruitt's idea has left many scrambling to figure out how they might respond if he and his allies follow through. Science organizations are working to build public support and understanding of their work and to combat individual claims. But they don't know how to prepare for an official government program aimed at finding uncertainty in climate science. Koizumi says Pruitt's idea is completely "outside the box" and "not within the community's vocabulary." Leaders at AAAS, as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, have chatted only informally about Pruitt's initiative, Koizumi said. When Energy Secretary Rick Perry last month suggested carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change, AMS sent him a letter charging that he lacks a "fundamental understanding of the science." Science societies also formally endorsed the March for Science in April. Last year, groups aimed at defending science more broadly started popping up, too. One of them, 314 Action, is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) that is "committed to electing more [science, technology, engineering and math] candidates to office, advocating for evidence-based policy solutions to issues like climate change, and fighting the Trump administration's attacks on science." The grass-roots organization 500 Women Scientists, launched after the November election, pledges to engage more people in an "inclusive scientific community." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000222-00003 But those groups aren't necessarily positioned to fight Pruitt's red team one on one. Communication tactics Polling suggests Americans are mostly on the side of climate scientists, even as Pruitt, Perry and President Trump call for more debate. Seventy percent of Americans believe climate change is happening, and 58 percent believe it is caused by human emissions, according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (Greenwire, July 5). But fewer, 45 percent, worry "a great deal" about climate change. When polling drills down deeper, people often view climate change as a problem that won't need to be solved for years. That's where climate communication gets tricky. "Not every scientist is a good communicator. Not every scientist should be communicating. Some of them are introverts and should be introverts," said Missy Stults, a research fellow and doctoral student at the University of Michigan. The administration, on the other hand, "is very, very good at speaking to people about things they value in very specific terms," Stults said. "We've relied on facts for a really long time and not gotten to values," she added. Ellen Stofan, the former chief scientist for NASA, said there is "an increasing fear and awareness on the part of the scientific community that the public has become skeptical of science writ large, whether it's climate change or vaccination." Stofan said some scientists are reframing climate change to make it more palatable and approachable to people who are inclined to reject the idea, while others are outraged at that strategy. Jonathan T. Overpeck, director of the University of Arizona's Institute of the Environment, said Pruitt will only inspire scientists to work harder to inform people of the risks of climate change. "Scientists aren't going to sit around and let him get away with this," he said. "It'll just drive a lot more efforts to communicate clearly what the real science says and try to explain it in terms that people in the public can understand and engage more." Overpeck said while some scientists have always tailored the language in their research proposals in order to suit specific audiences, it would be "abhorrent" to "pull punches" now for the sake of funding. "Here we are sitting on a huge time bomb, which is already starting to explode," he said. "Not to talk about it, to me, is some kind of malpractice." Reporter Robin Bravender contributed. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000222-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 6/11/2017 4:30:59 PM Soon and Judson defend Lamar Smith Excellent piece in defense of a true hero in the climate change debate: h ://m.m sanantonio.com/o inion/commenta climate-11209330.php /article/Smith-ti ht-about-hannful-worthless- Smith right about harmful, worthless climate accord By Jeff Judson and Willie Soon, Ph.D., for the Express-News I June 11, 2017 President Donald Trump announces his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accords in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on June 1. He was correct to do so because the pact would cause U.S. economic damage. As a policy analyst and atmospheric scientist, we felt the need to respond to Gilbert Garcia's recent column attacking U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith's "anti-science" support for President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, or PCA. Smith is right to oppose PCA, which has the dubious honor of simultaneously being environmentally worthless for the planet and economically punitive for the United States. In fact, PCA is really more about global wealth redistribution than it is about the climate. The 2016 analysis of PCA by Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center found that even if every single signatory met its nonbinding commitments, global temperatures would be reduced by at most 0.2 degrees Celsius in 2100 relative to the baseline case of no PCA. Simply put negligible. any impact on the climate produced by this treaty over the next 80 years would be Of course, that 0.2 degree reduction is the best-case scenario, possible only if every country meets its pledge. But France, Germany and Sweden are the only countries in Europe pursuing policies to meet their commitments, according to Transport & Environment and Carbon Market Watch. And Germany's emissions have actually increased over the past two years, thanks to the shortsighted decision to close the country's nuclear power plants. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000223-00001 The American Geoph sical Union is already warning that India, the world's third-largest carbon emitter, has plans for its coal industry that are incompatible with its treaty pledge, which included no emissions commitment. And China, the world's largest carbon emitter, does not have to begin reducing its emissions until 2030. Meanwhile, the United States pledged to cut its carbon dioxide emissions 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. That's right- for the next 13 years, the United States would be competing with a self-imposed handicap while the world's largest and third-largest emitters would be free to spew carbon dioxide with impunity. According to a report issued in March by NERA Economic Consulting, meeting the pledge made in PCA would cost the U.S. economy about $4 trillion between 2022 and 2031. As our pledge's "'mid-term' deep carbonization target constrains the economy significantly," the study concludes, the U.S. economy "could lose about 6 percent of its GDP on average between 2034 and 2040, amounting to a loss of greater than $2 trillion annually and a cumulative loss of $14 trillion." The study also estimates 6.5 million jobs in the industrial sector would be lost by 2040, including 3.1 million manufacturing jobs. A separate analysis of PCA by the Heritage Foundation concluded the regulations the Obama administration proposed to meet our commitments would result in at least $2.5 trillion in lost GDP and 400,000 fewer jobs by 2035 - as well as a 13 percent increase in electricity prices annually and a $20,000 total reduction in income for a family of four. To put this into perspective, losing $2.5 trillion in GDP is like losing the economic output of the entire state of California, which would mean losing the world's sixth-largest economy. President Trump was correct when he said that the PCA was a terrible deal for Americans. PCA was unconstitutional on its face, as it was never ratified by the Senate, and it would have caused this country serious economic pain with no corresponding improvement in the climate. We are thankful President Trump saw the Paris climate accord for what it is, and we are not surprised Rep. Smith, who understands the science and economics of this issue well, came to the same conclusion. Jeft'Judson is a resident of San Antonio and a senior fellow at the Heartland !11s1Uuteafreemarket think tank based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Willie Soon is an atmospheric and solar scientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000223-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 6/11/2017 3:11:25 PM [SPAM] How should we respond to these bitter-enders? Friends, The always-alert Fred Singer sent this link, and asked whether and how we ought to respond. The webpage has a long list of businesses, investors, government officials, university leaders, and others who apparently have pledged to do what they can to comply with the goals of the Paris Climate Treaty (and presumably the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era executive orders and unconstitutional regulations) despite Trnmp's decision to re-set U.S. climate change and energy policies. The news release issued on 6/5, which appears (oddly) at the bottom of the 45-page website, reads as follows: We Are Still In Press Release - 06/05/2017 Leaders in U.S. Economy Say "We Are Still In' on Paris Climate Agreement Climate Declaration Represents 120 Million Americans and $6.2 Trillion of the U.S. Economy Washington DC - A grand total of 1,219 governors, mayors, businesses, investors, and colleges and universities from across the U.S. or with significant operations in the U.S., representing the broadest cross section of the American economy yet assembled in pursuit of climate action, today declared their intent to continue to ensure the U.S. remains a global leader in reducing carbon emissions. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000224-00001 Together, these leaders are sending a strong signal to the international community and the 194 other parties to the Paris Agreement about the continued commitment of the U.S. to ambitious action on climate change absent leadership at the federal level. In the aggregate, the signatories are delivering concrete emissions reductions that will help meet America's emissions pledge under the Paris Agreement. Signatories include leaders from 125 cities, 9 states, 902 businesses and investors, and 183 colleges and universities. Participating cities and states represent 120 million Americans and contribute $6.2 trillion to the U.S. economy, and include Oregon and cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Houston as well as smaller cities like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Dubuque, Iowa. A mixture of private universities, state schools and community colleges, both small and large, have added their institutions to the statement. In total the undersigned businesses and investors account for a total annual revenue of $1.4 trillion and include over 20 Fortune 500 companies, including Apple, eBay, Gap Inc., Google, Intel, Microsoft, and Nike, in addition to hundreds of small businesses, have also signed the statement. The statement calls "The Trump administration's announcement [one that] undermines a key pillar in the fight against climate change [and a move which is] out of step with what is happening in the United States." The signers all understand that the Paris Agreement is a blueprint for job creation, stability and global prosperity and that accelerating the United States' clean energy transition is an opportunity - not a liability - to create jobs, spur innovation, promote trade and ensure American competitiveness. By declaring that "we are still in," the signatories are putting the best interests of their constituents, customers, students and communities first while assuring the rest of the world that American leadership on climate change extends well beyond the federal government. In addition to this statement, since President Trump's announcement to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, 211 Climate Mayors have adopted the Paris Agreement goals for their cities, 13 Governors have formed the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance, and 17 governors have released individual statements standing by Paris. Today's statement embraces this rapidly growing movement of subnational and civil society leaders, by announcing that not only are these leaders stepping forward, they are stepping forward together. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000224-00002 My initial reaction to things like this is always: how can we use jiu-jitsu and tum this to our advantage? (Some people mistaken this for optimism ... I am not, by nature, an optimistic person.) We are entering the final stages of victory over the global warmists, where we track down the bitter-enders in their Cu Chi tunnels and take them out (figuratively ... for we are a nonviolent movement). These losers just gave us the membership list of their club, and appear likely to continuously update it for us. This is a tactical error on their part and great news for us, if we can capitalize on it. If I had unlimited time and resources, I would do the following: * launch four boycott websites, one each for cities, states, businesses and investors, and colleges and universities, explaining how stupid and hurtful these civic and business "leaders" are, how their action hurts their cities/businesses etc. and the nation, and calling on tourists, consumers, investors, and parents (depending on the type of entity) to boycott these establishments until and unless they publicly retract their pledges; * market the four websites in print and online publications that target tourists, consumers, investors, and parents looking for colleges for their children; just knowing such a campaign is underway will dampen enthusiasm by other political and business leaders for signing up, and may prompt some leaders to withdraw from the group; * use a combination of web research and phone calls to contact everyone on the list, let them know what we are doing, and add their contact information to the websites along with their city council members, CEOs, VPs of Sales and Marketing, deans, chairmen, head of customer relations, etc., etc.; use the websites to urge people to contact all of them, repeatedly, urging them to retract the proclamation; SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000224-00003 * identify "friendlies" in every city, state, business, etc. who can stand up and say, e.g., "I live in Tempe, Arizona and I oppose this declaration and am working to have it retracted. Join me!" Those contacts would work with local and national allies - starting with conservative advocacy groups but them moving well beyond those centers of support - to build lists of people calling for repeal of the declarations by elected officials, business leaders, and college leader in their cities or states; * report on the websites anyone who has done anything to boycott a city, state, business, etc., and any communication anyone has with the targets regarding this declaration, e.g., "Today I moved our planned staff retreat from Tempe, Arizona, where we've held it every year since 2014, to Arlington Heights, Illinois, because Tempe is anti-energy, anti-jobs, and anti-freedom on the climate change issue. We will return to Tempe only when Mayor Mark Mitchell, or his successor, or the city council publicly revokes Mitchell's ridiculous 'We Are Still In' declaration." * publicize anything anyone on this list does that involves the use of fossil fuels, or any subsidies or (in the case of colleges and universities) grants they receive to support alternative energy or producing fake climate change studies and other crony capitalist schemes, or anything else that reveals hypocrisy or failure to live up to their pledge - e.g., why does Mayor Mark Mitchell drive an SUV? Do his homes have solar panels? What is his monthly utility bill? Do renewable energy companies donate to his campaigns? and * put a full time person or two on creating "Google alerts" for every individual person's name reported at-'--'---'-'---'--'--'---'--'---'====-=-== and tasked with placing in the comment fields of every news and commentary article mentioning them criticism based on their endorsement of this proclamation, e.g., when Tempe Mayor Mark Mitchell cuts a ribbon for a new Dunkin Donuts, post: "Tempe Mayor Mark Mitchell is a bitter-ender willing to sacrifice the well-being of everyone in Tempe on the altar of 'global warming.' He received thousands of dollars in campaign cash from Solyndra before it went bankrupt. He and handful of other deluded liberals signed the ridiculous "We Are Still In" declaration that is costing Tempe jobs and taxpayers millions of dollars. Go to_ and tell Mitch and the city council to retract the resolution." Now, that would cost quite a lot to do, so instead we'll probably do our usual snarky op-ed or SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000224-00004 two and move on ... Fred Singer had a shorter list of things we could do: I KEEP TRACK OF PROGRESS OF THE 1200 ENTITIES 2. PLOT THEIR AVERA GE 3. SUGGEST A VARIETY OF PENALTIES for missing targets [like -- forfeit moneys in escrow] What do you think we should do? Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000224-00005 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000224-00006 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Joseph Bast Fri 6/9/2017 8:26:57 PM FW: EPA's Weekly Round-Up For 06/09/17 This is great! I've encouraged my "posse" to sign up for it. Joe From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmail19.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 2:41 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: EPA's Weekly Round-Up For 06/09/17 EPA's Weekly Round-Up From discussing how President Trump's decision to leave the Paris Accord puts America First, to announcing brownfield grants and clearing out the chemical backlog it's been a successful week at the EPA. NATIONAL NEWS ... On ABC's This Week, Pruitt discussed how small businesses across the country are celebrating President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris accord. "Well, when you look at, even The New York Times had an article, I think, within the last couple of days that talked about small business celebrating, euphoria with respect to the president's decision." On Fox News Sunday, Pruitt explained how the U.S. is the energy technology leader of the world and that if China and India want to reduce their CO2 footprint, they should follow us. "If China and India want to reduce their CO2 footprint, they should learn from us," Pruitt told Fox News' Chris Wallace." Administrator Scott Pruitt was on MSNBC's Morning..J9~ where he said the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000225-00001 Paris Accord put our economy at a disadvantage. "When you look at what was agreed to in Paris, it put this country, our country at a disadvantage economically." Breitbart reports that Pruitt was on SiriusXM radio where he said the Paris Accord would have driven more regulation through litigation. "Regulation through litigation, if you will, which, I think, is an abuse of executive authority, an abuse of the rulemaking process," Pruitt said." The Huffington Post reports that President Trump's EPA is doing a good job at regulating new chemicals. "The Environmental Protection Agency plans by next month to clear its backlog of hundreds of new chemicals waiting to be deemed safe enough to sell to the public." •======== Additionally, Scientist Richard Denison penned an op-ed for the Environmental !Defense Fund saying the EPA has made enormous progress regarding the chemical backlog. "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday updated its website to provide a current snapshot of the status of new chemical reviews it has been conducting under last year's amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The statistics show that, despite being faced immediately with a substantial increase in responsibilities and workload as a result of the major changes made to TSCA, EPA has made enormous progress in implementing the new requirements." The Washington Free Beacon reports that the EPA is responding to inquiries from Senate EPW Committee in a timely manner. "The Environmental Protection Agency has responded to half of a Senate oversight committee's information requests, undermining a top Democrat's claim that he is blocking nominees because the agency has not answered his letters." •======== Additionally, the Washington Examiner reports the EPA has been incredibly responsive to inquires received for the Senate EPW Committee. "Normally, that's a perfectly reasonable way for the Senate to exercise oversight of a stonewalling administrative agency. Except that's not happening. According to EPA records shared with the Washington Examiner, the agency has received 20 letters from Carper, responded to 10 already, and just mailed another Friday." The Daily Caller reports that the Trump Administration delayed one of the most expensive EPA regulations ever. "The Trump administration announced Tuesday evening it would delay the implementation of a smog rule that's been called one of the costliest clean air regulations ever." •======== Senate Maori Leader Mitch McConnell applauded the EPA's move to delay this rule. "I applaud Administrator Scott Pruitt for his decision to delay this Obama Administration issued regulation, which was finalized in October 2015." •======== Additionally, members of the House Western Caucus praised the EPA for SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000225-00002 their action. "When pristine national parks like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain are in danger of being in nonattainment under the proposed Obama standard, there is a serious problem with the numbers," said Chairman Paul Gosar. "I am glad to see common sense finally prevail at the EPA with the announcement that the agency is postponing and reevaluating the job-killing Ozone Rule promulgated by President Obama." TO THE STATES ... In Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the EPA awards Atlanta with $300,000 for the community-wide brownfield cleanup activity. "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently selected the city of Atlanta to receive a brownfields revolving loan fund grant totaling $300,000. This is in addition to the more than $1.7 million in grant funding for community-wide brownfields assessment activities and cleanup planning that seven communities in Georgia were selected to receive on May 31." In Indiana, the Greensburg Daily News reports that the EPA has given $475,000 for potential brownfield assessments. "The Southeastern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (SIRPC) will receive a $475,000 grant to investigate environmental conditions at vacant and unused properties with redevelopment potential in the Greensburg industrial commercial district as well as other locations in the state, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials said." In Texas, the Gilmer Mirror reports that students from Pearland received the President's Environmental Youth Award. "Teenagers from Pearland, Katy and Houston, Texas, are among the national winners of the 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the White House Council on Environmental Quality's President's Environmental Youth Award (PEYA)." In Utah, NPR Utah reports that Pruitt is giving flexibility to comply with this regulation from the Obama Administration. "Federal regulators are giving states like Utah another year to sort out their ozone-pollution solutions. The U-S Environmental Protection Agency is extending a deadline for states that are have been poised to write ozone cleanup plans .... EPA's Pruitt said he wants more "flexibility" for communities struggling with ozone, and he's creating a task force to review the ozone limits set during the Obama administration." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000225-00003 IJ S. Environrnental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000225-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 7/12/2017 9:36:13 PM Pruitt supports televising Red Team-Green Team debates Folks, this is what we hoped for, asked for, and have been preparing for since 2008. h ://www.rcuters.com/artic1e/us-usa-c a- ruitt-idUSKBN 19W2D0 HIT Roger Bezdek. (Also note the article right below this one, on the breaking off of a "one trillion tonne iceberg, measuring 5,800 square km, calved away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica sometime between July 10 and 12." Much to the authors' credit, they say ... "Big icebergs break off Antarctica naturally, meaning scientists are not linking the rift to manmade climate change. The ice, however, is a part of the Antarctic peninsula that has warmed fast in recent decades. 'In the ensuing months and years, the ice shelf could either gradually regrow, or may suffer further calving events which may eventually lead to collapse - opinions in the scientific community are divided,' Luckman said. 'Our models say it will be less stable, but any future collapse remains years or decades away.'" Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000226-00001 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000226-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 6/9/2017 8:26:22 PM EPA's Weekly Round-Up For 06/09/17 Y'all might want to sign up for this. It is a refreshing departure from the sort of news Obama's EPA used to share. Joe From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmail19.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 2:41 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: EPA's Weekly Round-Up For 06/09/17 EPA's Weekly Round-Up From discussing how President Trump's decision to leave the Paris Accord puts America First, to announcing brownfield grants and clearing out the chemical backlog it's been a successful week at the EPA. NATIONAL NEWS ... country are celebrating President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris accord. "Well, when you look at, even The New York Times had an article, I think, within the last couple of days that talked about small business celebrating, euphoria with respect to the president's decision." On .:....::..::.::...::..::.::...::..::..::::;_==~• Pruitt explained how the U.S. is the energy technology leader of the world and that if China and India want to reduce their CO2 footprint, they should follow us. "If China and India want to reduce their CO2 footprint, they should learn from us," Pruitt told Fox News' Chris Wallace." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000227-00001 Administrator Scott Pruitt was on MSNBC's Morning Joe where he said the Paris Accord put our economy at a disadvantage. "When you look at what was agreed to in Paris, it put this country, our country at a disadvantage economically." Breitbart reports that Pruitt was on SiriusXM radio where he said the Paris Accord would have driven more regulation through litigation. "Regulation through litigation, if you will, which, I think, is an abuse of executive authority, an abuse of the rulemaking process," Pruitt said." The Huffington Post reports that President Trump's EPA is doing a good job at regulating new chemicals. "The Environmental Protection Agency plans by next month to clear its backlog of hundreds of new chemicals waiting to be deemed safe enough to sell to the public." •======== Additionally, Scientist Richard Denison penned an op-ed for the Environmental !Defense Fund saying the EPA has made enormous progress regarding the chemical backlog. "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday updated its website to provide a current snapshot of the status of new chemical reviews it has been conducting under last year's amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The statistics show that, despite being faced immediately with a substantial increase in responsibilities and workload as a result of the major changes made to TSCA, EPA has made enormous progress in implementing the new requirements." The Washington Free Beacon reports that the EPA is responding to inquiries from Senate EPW Committee in a timely manner. "The Environmental Protection Agency has responded to half of a Senate oversight committee's information requests, undermining a top Democrat's claim that he is blocking nominees because the agency has not answered his letters." •======== Additionally, the Washington Examiner reports the EPA has been incredibly responsive to inquires received for the Senate EPW Committee. "Normally, that's a perfectly reasonable way for the Senate to exercise oversight of a stonewalling administrative agency. Except that's not happening. According to EPA records shared with the Washington Examiner, the agency has received 20 letters from Carper, responded to 10 already, and just mailed another Friday." The Daily Caller reports that the Trump Administration delayed one of the most expensive EPA regulations ever. "The Trump administration announced Tuesday evening it would delay the implementation of a smog rule that's been called one of the costliest clean air regulations ever." •======== Senate Maori Leader Mitch McConnell applauded the EPA's move to delay this rule. "I applaud Administrator Scott Pruitt for his decision to delay this Obama Administration issued regulation, which was finalized in October 2015." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000227 -00002 •======== Additionally, members of the I-louse Western Caucus praised the EPA for their action. "When pristine national parks like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain are in danger of being in nonattainment under the proposed Obama standard, there is a serious problem with the numbers," said Chairman Paul Gosar. "I am glad to see common sense finally prevail at the EPA with the announcement that the agency is postponing and reevaluating the job-killing Ozone Rule promulgated by President Obama." TO THE STATES ... In Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the EPA awards Atlanta with $300,000 for the community-wide brownfield cleanup activity. "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently selected the city of Atlanta to receive a brownfields revolving loan fund grant totaling $300,000. This is in addition to the more than $1.7 million in grant funding for community-wide brownfields assessment activities and cleanup planning that seven communities in Georgia were selected to receive on May 31." In Indiana, the Greensburg Daily News reports that the EPA has given $475,000 for potential brownfield assessments. "The Southeastern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (SIRPC) will receive a $475,000 grant to investigate environmental conditions at vacant and unused properties with redevelopment potential in the Greensburg industrial commercial district as well as other locations in the state, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials said." In Texas, the Gilmer Mirror reports that students from Pearland received the President's Environmental Youth Award. "Teenagers from Pearland, Katy and Houston, Texas, are among the national winners of the 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the White House Council on Environmental Quality's President's Environmental Youth Award (PEYA)." In Utah, NPR Utah reports that Pruitt is giving flexibility to comply with this regulation from the Obama Administration. "Federal regulators are giving states like Utah another year to sort out their ozone-pollution solutions. The U-S Environmental Protection Agency is extending a deadline for states that are have been poised to write ozone cleanup plans .... EPA's Pruitt said he wants more "flexibility" for communities struggling with ozone, and he's creating a task force to review the ozone limits set during the Obama administration." http:/ /usenviron mentalprotectionagen cy. cma ii 19. com/Ud-I-ktu j ilt-azdlh ku j-z/ SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000227 -00003 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency '1200 Pennsylvarna Avenue Northwest \Nashinqton, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000227 -00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 7/12/2017 8:01 :59 PM Michael Hamilton in Townhall on the demise of NCPA Friends, The demise of a free-market think tank ought not go unremarked by its peers. I was delighted to see that Michael Hamilton, a Heartland research fellow and managing editor of Health Care News, thought the same and wrote an absolutely delightful piece about it. Joe h s://townhall.com/columnists/michaclhamilton/2017 /07 /12/as-think-tank-folds-frcemarkctlegacy-bums-bright-n2353998 Townhall 7/12/17 As Think Tank Folds, Free-Market Legacy Burns Bright By: Michael Hamilton, the Heartland Institute A think tank should be a beacon on a hill, a light guiding elected officials as they steer the ship of state. Policies tend to outlast the tenure of the politicians who enact them. Similarly, think tanks tend to outlast the individuals who first made them influential. Occasionally, a long-established think tank folds. This is not a sign of failure, although surely its detractors will spin it as one. A lighthouse no longer in use is no failure, as anyone who has visited a lighthouse knows. The moment its light fades, it becomes a monument-not only to its own bright past, but to all other lighthouses. So it is with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which shut its doors in July 2017 after 34 years of researching and promoting "free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector," according to NCPA.org. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000228-00001 NCPA's self-description as promoting "alternatives" to government regulation and control signifies the crisis NCPA was founded to solve in 1983. It implies that too many elected officials, policy wonks, and voters view government regulation and control as the default solution to society's problems. Today approximately half the country would like to increase the government's control over the systems and institutions important to everyday life. Approximately half the world felt this way when NCPA was founded in 1983, in the throes of the Cold War. The Soviet Union and satellite governments trusted central planners to control how money was made, who made it, and how much of it the government would confiscate in its socialist economy. By contrast, NCPA boasts four landmark policy victories increasing the power individual citizens have over the money they earn-money which is by default their own, not the government's. NCPA's website states the following: "Because of the NCPA idea of Roth IRAs, $265 billion in personal savings has been taxed once and will never be taxed again .... "Because of the NCPA idea of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), 30 million people are managing some of their own health care dollars .... "Because of the recommendations of an NCPA/Brookings Institute plan, half of all future 401 (k) enrollees will be automatically enrolled in a diversified portfolio enjoying higher and safer returns .... "Because of NCPA recommendations for Social Security reform, 78 million Baby Boomers will be able to work beyond age 65 without being penalized by Social Security." These four NCPA victories rebuke progressive-liberal and socialist-leaning ideologues who think the only people qualified to control people's money are the people in power. These victories also rebuke individuals quick to dismiss public policy analysis as abstract. Whether a retiree who worked 30-plus years has money in his retirement account is a concrete matter. So is whether a senior citizen is allowed to keep working without fear of losing Social Security. So is whether families are allowed to pay for each other's health care needs before paying Uncle Sam. Unfortunately, the individuals and businesses whose personnel are prospering because of these limitations on government overreach don't always say "thank you" in the language every think tank must eventually learn: dollars and cents. NCPA's Board of Directors is fluent: "The decision to leave the world of think tanks comes after the organization has faced significant financial challenges over the last three years. The incident is not isolated, according to a June 29 article in Exempt Magazine[stating] ... 'more than half of surveyed nonprofits have frequent or chronic budget deficits; 40 percent have fewer than three months of operating reserves; and, 10 percent showed no reserves,"' NCPA's website states. For more than three decades, NCPA helped defend the self-evident, unalienable right to property, including the freedom to spend one's money however one wants. This freedom cuts both ways. People are free not to give back, as the thinkers formerly associated with NCPA well SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000228-00002 know. Thus, even in dissolution, NCPA pays tribute to the link between liberty and prosperity-a NCPA dutifully illuminated. That's a bright way to pass the torch. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 link ED_ 001389 _ 00000228-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Fri 6/9/2017 6:09:17 PM RE: Postponement of Scientific Stakeholder meeting scheduled for 6/14/2017 Thanks, John. Fascinating letter. They admit that they sent invitations out to the Heritage Foundation? At least in this draft, it appears. Love it if Heartland was mentioned. The eco-left hates us a lot more than them. If we do continue with our program, and that is more likely than not, you and others at EPA are more than welcome. In fact, we'd love it for several of you to attend. Cheers! Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:36 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: FW: Postponement of Scientific Stakeholder meeting scheduled for 6/14/2017 From: Sinks, Tom Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 1:29 PM To: Otto, Martha ; Hubbard, Carolyn SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000229-00001 Cc: Siciliano, CarolAnn ; Sinks, Tom ; Knapp, Kristien ; Grifo, Francesca ; Kavlock, Robert ; Greene, Mary ; Brantner, Emily K. ;Konkus, John ; Linkins, Samantha ; Greene, Mary Subject: Postponement of Scientific Stakeholder meeting scheduled for 6/14/2017 As you know, Francesca Grifoi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy j Privacy : I expect~d her to let us know if would be able to host the stakeholder 1 have not heard from her and l-·E;;~-6--~-·p;~;~·~;-i-P~i~;~y-j Therefore, 1 am postponing the meeting. We will set another date once she is better. Attached is a desk statement and Qs and As re the postponement. In addition - Marty Otto will start to distribute the following email to all of those previously invited or having RSVP' d. Sam will you please share this with the folks in communications with congressional staffers. i Ex. 6 - Personal \iieeting°-on-Wednesday. Thanks so much for everybody's help with this so far. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000229-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Fri 6/9/2017 3:09:24 PM Invitations to EPA meeting John, Thanks for your help in getting Heartland and a team of scientists and experts to the EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting next week. Many Heartland folks and our friends have not yet received confirmation emails from EPA letting us know we're on the registration list. I hope Grifo's office is just a bit backlogged and we'll be getting our confirmation emails soon. Meanwhile, we were looking at a map of the Ronald Reagan Building Mezzanine, Room 301 A-B, and didn't see any rooms labeled like that in the building's mezzanine. This is the .:.....::..::::=.:..::::...;===..:....==~..=.:...:..::::.....:~:::..:....:....==:::..:........:....:..=::::..::::...-=..:::== near Federal Triangle, right? Or do we have the wrong location? Warm regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000230-00001 Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org]; Gwendalyn Carver[GCarver@heartland.org] From: Joseph Bast Sent: Fri 6/9/2017 2:35: 11 PM Subject: Four liberal U.S. Senators attack Heartland, and we reply Reply to Whitehouse et al.pdf 2017-06-07 Heartland Letter - DeVos.pdf To: Cc: Friends, It is almost unbelievable how low our opponents stoop in their effort to demonize us and stop President Trump from repealing the worst parts of Barack Obama's legacy. As you may have heard, I was in the Rose Garden a week ago when President Trump announced the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty. I was honored to be invited, and view it as a sign that our efforts for the past 20 years on the climate change issue have not gone unnoticed. But the left noticed my attendance as well, and so this week they tried to hurt President Trump by attacking me. The Union of Concerned Scientists and other left-wing groups shivered and cried about my presence in the Rose Garden. Forget about them. More interesting was the attached letter to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos signed by four U.S. Senators -- Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), and Edward Markey (D-MA) - demanding to know if her department "had contact with individuals associated with the Heartland Institute on climate, science, or science education issues," and demanding as well copies of said correspondence, any information regarding discussions between Heartland and other White House staff members, and more. The letter goes on to accuse The Heartland Institute of being a "notorious industry front group," and worse. Also attached is my reply to the four senators, going out today. I hope you don't think it's too timid. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000231-00001 We are not letting up on our efforts to spread the truth about climate change and other important public policy issues. Next week we will be in Washington DC conducting a briefing with friends and allies, and later this year we plan to host a major conference on President Trump's "America First Energy Plan." I need your help. I need third parties to write about this attack on us and our effort to defend ourselves ... it's not enough that I write about our past and present work or reputation. If you can put something in writing - in an op-ed, news release, blog post, or even an email reply to this message that can be used with attribution - please do so, and please copy Heartland's communications director Jim Lakely. I also need your financial support. As often happens when we enter the summer months, Heartland's income falls while our spending remains the same. Bank balances get perilously low. A financial contribution from you now or in the coming weeks would make a big difference, and allow me to continue to focus on playing offense in this most important public policy battle of our time. You can contribute by going to our website at heartland.erg and clicking on the "donate" button, or call my office at 312/377-4000 and ask to speak with Gwen Carver, our development director. Gwen can also tell you how to make a contribution via wire transfer, or how to make a donation of appreciated stock. Thank you in advance for your support, and I hope to hear from you soon. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000231-00002 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000231-00003 nittd totes cnotc WASHINGTON,DC 20510 June 7, 2017 The Honorable Betsy DeVos Secretary, United States Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington D.C. 20202 Dear Secretary De Vos, We write to share with you the letter Senator Whitehouse sent earlier this week to national science teacher organizations and teachers groups, and to express our concern about your statement regarding President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Since becoming Secretary of Education, you have not publicly commented on any administration decisions or policies outside the purview of the Department of Education with one exception. Last week you issued a statement that President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement was an "example of his commitment to rolling back the unrealistic and overreaching regulatory actions by the previous Administration," and that the President was "making good on his promise to put America and American workers first." This is a quick about-face from your nomination hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. When Senator Whitehouse asked you in January about your views on humancaused climate change, you answered: "The Department of Education does not have any jurisdiction over climate change or climate issues so, if confirmed, I would respectfully defer to my colleagues in other agencies, like the Department of Energy, on these issues. Additionally, the Department of Education is prohibited from dictating curricula in our nation's schools so I respectfully defer to state and local school districts about what they will or will not teach." Between January and last week, you apparently decided to present your views on an issue over which your department "does not have any jurisdiction." In doing so you landed squarely on the side that argues, incorrectly, that climate change science is not settled. Regrettably, this comes as no surprise as your family's foundations have given $6,149,100 to the Acton [nstitute for the Study of Religion and Liberty and Mackinac Center for Public Policy since 2001, two organizations notorious for promoting junk science. 1 Your statement comes on the heels of an effo11by the Heartland Institute, another notorious industry front group, to disseminate fossil-fuel industry talking points as curriculum for science teachers across America. On March 28, the PBS program Frontline reported that the Heartland Institute is distributing factually inaccurate and scientifically illegitimate materials on climate change to upwards of 200,000 public school science teachers. Heartland Institute's President and CEO was quoted as saying, "'We're getting a lot of requests for expert opinion from the White House .... That's very new. We haven't had those calls for eight years. Even 12 years:' Ill Data from IRS Form 990s filed by the Dick & Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, Richard & Helen DcVos Foundation, the Doug & Maria De Vos Foundation. the Dan & Pamella DeVos Foundation, and the Edgar & Elsa Prince Foundation. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000232-00001 There is good reason for that. As detailed in the enclosed letter, the Heartland Institute has disseminated "alternative facts" and fake science at the behest of its industry funders for decades. It may well be proven to be engaged in fraud. In the 1990s, it teamed up with Phillip Morris to challenge facts about the health risks of tobacco. The tobacco industry's conduct as found to be fraudulent. Using the same strategies, with funding from the Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil, and other fossil fuel interests, the Heartland Institute now seeks to undermine the scientific consensus about climate change. At your nomination hearing, you were asked whether you would stand on the side of students or with the political entities trying to force junk science into schools. You responded that you, "support the teaching of great science and especially science that allows students to exercise critical thinking and to really discover and examine in new ways." We agree that "great science" and critical thinking are cornerstones of a high-quality education, but that is not achieved with Heartland's industry-funded and possibly fraudulent materials. It is our sincere hope that neither White House staff nor Department of Education officials have turned to the lieartland Institute on the issues of climate change and climate science, or had any roll in this mailing to educators. To address these concerns, we request that you provide responses to the following: 1) Have any staff members at the Department of Education had contact with individuals associated with the Heartland Institute on climate, science, or science education issues? If so, on what dates did these consultations occur and who did they involve? 2) If the answer to the previous question is yes, please provide copies of all relevant correspondence between you and any Department of Education staff and representatives of the Heartland Institute. 3) Are you or any members of your staff aware of discussions between White House staff members and individuals associated with the Heartland Institute? If so, what were the dates and topics of these conversations and who did they involve? 4) Are any informational resources currently provided through Department of Education (e.g. What Works Clearing House, Teaching Resources page, etc.) created in collaboration with, or reviewed by, anyone associated with the Heartland Institute? We would appreciate the courtesy of a response not later than June 30, 2017. If you have any questions, or would like to further discuss this request, please contact Senator Whitehouse's Washington, DC office at (202) 224-2921. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ldon Whitehouse United States Senator Brian Schatz United States Senator Edward J. Marke United States Senator SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000232-00002 June 8, 2017 INSTITUTE To: A nonprofit organization devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), and Edward Markey (D-MA) From: Joseph L. Bast, president The Heartland Institute Re: Your recent shameful conduct with regard to our communications with the Trump administration PUBLISHER OF QPR Health Care News Budget & Tax News School Reform News Environment & Climate News E-newsletters: Climate Change Weekly School Choice Weekly Consumer Power Report The Leaflet Heartland Weekly I was disappointed but not surprised by your letter dated June 7 sent to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in which you demand to know if her department "had contact with individuals associated with the Heartland Institute on climate, science, or science education issues," and demanding as well copies of said correspondence, any information regarding discussions between Heartland and other White House staff members, and more. For the record, The Heartland Institute has contacted nearly all members of the Trump cabinet. We have sent extensive information to more than I 00 members of the administration explaining who we are, enclosing multiple publications (including books, policy studies, and videos) of most relevance to their positions, and offering to make our extensive network of some 370 policy experts available to provide further assistance. Some have gotten back to US. We have published scores, possibly more than one hundred, commentaries and news releases and news stories calling attention to the new administration's policy decisions, congratulating it when it has done what we believe to be the right things, and criticizing it when they have come up short. Can any of you explain to me how this differs from the relationship the previous administration had with liberal advocacy groups? Can any of you explain why these contacts are illegitimate or against the public interest? ADDRESS 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 phone 312/377-4000 email think@heartland.org web: www.heartland.org Your letter to Secretary De Vos describes The Heartland Institute as a "notorious industry front group." This is false and defamatory. Heartland is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research and education organization with a broard funding base, a long history of taking positions at odds with "industry," and has policies in place that protect its staff from undue influence from donors. All this is explained on our website in a section titled "Reply to Our Critics." Google it. - continued - SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000233-00001 Memorandum from The Heartland Institute June 8, 2017 Page Two Your letter cites PBS Frontline as reporting "that the Heartland Institute is distributing factually inaccurate and scientifically illegitimate materials on climate change to upwards of 200,000 public school science teachers." PBS Frontline is not qualified to make that judgment. And the number of public school science teachers is considerably less than 200,000. Didn't anyone on your staffs fact-check this letter before it was circulated? Our work on climate change is produced by a network of more than 200 highly qualified scientists, economists, and policy experts. It has been cited in more than one hundred peerreviewed articles. The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of it, it translated two volumes of our work into Mandarin Chinese and published it as a condensed volume in 2013. Surveys and literature reviews show our views are supported by a majority of scientists in the United States. Your letter goes on to claim that Heartland has "disseminated 'alternative facts' and fake science at the behest of its industry funders for decades." You go on to comment on our funding from Phillip Morris, the Koch family foundations, and ExxonMobil, implying that our work may be "fraudulent." It is simply despicable that you would knowingly repeat such lies in an open letter like this. Shame, shame, shame. The Heartland Institute' s research has been praised by scores of policymakers and our peers in the public policy research community. (See the document titled "Endorsements" linked in the "About" feature on our Website.) We are ranked one of the top ten conservative think tanks in the world. The Koch family has made exactly one gift to us in the past 20 years, of only $25,000 earmarked for a health care policy project. ExxonMobil stopped giving in 2007, before Heartland ramped up its work on climate change. Your claims are false, obviously intended to defame us. But of course you know all this, because I've told you this before in response to previous libelous letters you've sent. Frankly, your letter is a monumental misuse of your offices and a betrayal of the trust of your constituents. You should all be ashamed. Happily, it now appears our work is informing the decisions of the Trump administration, conscientious members of the U.S. House and Senate, and governors and state elected officials from coast to coast. I understand this is bad for you, but it is good for the nation, for the environment, and for us. I eagerly await your retractions and apologies. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000233-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 7/11/2017 1:51:15 PM Chris DeFreitas, RIP Friends, Our friend Terry Dunleavy sends the bad news from New Zealand that Prof. Chris de Freitas has passed away after a two-year battle with cancer. He was 69. May he rest in peace. Terry's email with a link to an obituary is at the bottom of this message. Chris spoke at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-4), in Chicago in May, 2010. You can watch the video here: https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos-environment/chris-de-freitas-iccc4 ... and again at the Fifth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-5) - the first held outside the United States - which took place on October 1, 2010 in Sydney, Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN6zlrHcJ9k WattsUpWithThat has a comment here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017 /07 /11 /prom inent-nz-scientist-chris-de-freitas-dies/ His brief bio on the University of Auckland website is here: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000234-00001 https://unidirecto y.auckland.ac.nz/profile/c-defreitas Joe From: Terry Dunleavy [mailto:terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:21 AM To: Yahoo Groups Cc: Joseph Bast; Jim Lakely; Benny Peiser; Marc Morano; Joanne Nova; Tom Harris; Jay Lehr Subject: ANOTHER WARRIOR LOST Sad news all, I am sorry to have to tell you of the untimely death of a noble and noted New Zealand warrior for our cause, Associate Professor Chris DeFreitas, of the University of Auckland. Having just learned this said news, I am too overcome with grief to do other than to refer you to this news report: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c id=1 &objectid=11888890 Terry Dunleavy New ZEaland Cimate Science Coalition SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000234-00002 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Scientific lntegrity[Scientific_lntegrity@epa.gov] Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov]; Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Wed 6/7/2017 9:11:30 PM RE: RSVP: Joseph Bast plans to attend June 14 meeting Dear Ms. Otto, Thank you! People affiliated with The Heartland Institute who plan to attend in person are: Joseph L. Bast, president Timothy Benson, government relations manager Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., research fellow Jay Lehr, Ph.D., senior fellow Jim Lakely, communications director Edward Hudgins, Ph.D., research director Aaron Stover, corporate relations officer Just a few minutes before I received your email, I sent an email asking them and other people who expressed interest in attending in person to reply directly to you. I don't believe anyone other than those listed above will cite an affiliation with The Heartland Institute, as most are academics or on the staffs of other think tanks. I will encourage people who expressed interest but are unable to travel to Washington DC to RSVP for the conference call and AdobeConnect, too. Best regards, and hope to meet you next week. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000235-00001 Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. From: Otto, Martha [mailto:Otto.Martha@epa.gov] On Behalf Of Scientific Integrity Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:54 PM To: Joseph Bast; Scientific Integrity Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: RSVP: Joseph Bast plans to attend June 14 meeting Dear Mr. Bast, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000235-00002 Thank you for your reply. In response to your question, I would be happy to register your colleagues for next week's stakeholder meeting. Please send to me the list of their names and affiliations. Also, please let me know whether you and your colleagues plan to attend in person or via conference line / AdobeConnect. We request this information so that we can ensure that we have a conference room that can accommodate all participants. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Martha Otto Office of the Science Advisor mail code 8105R tel: 202.564.2782 otto.martha@cpa.goy: From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 11:31 AM To: Scientific Integrity Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RSVP: Joseph Bast plans to attend June 14 meeting Thank you for the invitation to attend the Scientific Integrity meeting next week Wednesday. I plan to attend, and would like to bring several scientists and economists affiliated with my organization. Can you please let me know how I should go about registering them to attend? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000235-00003 Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000235-00004 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Wed 6/7/2017 5:26:20 PM Invitations to EPA meeting John, I contacted many of the people we work with on the climate issue as well as my own staff to see if they could attend EPA' s Scientific Integrity annual meeting next week. To my surprise, forty of them said they will attend if allowed. All are highly qualified, many have affiliations that I believe would qualify them as "stakeholders" independent of any affiliation with The Heartland Institute. The list, with their affiliations and email addresses, appears below and is attached in PDF. Can you get invitations for all of them? Can you get invitations for some of them? Or should I forward to them the invitation I received, and let them RSVP to the SIO? Or should I contact SIO with this list in hand and say these are my guests? Call me at 312/377-4000 so we can discuss this. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000237-00001 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/3 77-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 1, Charles Anderson, Ph.D., Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc., charles.anderson@andersonmaterials.com, 301- 830-1886 2, Joseph Bast, The Heartland Institute, jbast@heartland.org, l_Ex.6-_Personal Privacy _i 3, Richard Belzer, Ph.D. ' Regulatory Checkbook, rbbelzer@post.harvard.edu,l_ 4, Tim Benson, , The Heartland Institute, tbenson@heartland.org,i Ex. ' . Ex._G- Personal Privacy _i s-Persona1 Privacyi '-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-) 5, Edwin X. Berry, Ph.D., Climate Physics LLC, ed@edberry.com,[ Ex. 6-Personal Privacy i L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-' 6, Joe Bevelacqua, Ph.D., Bevelacqua Resources,[ ____ Ex._6 _-_Personal __ Priva_cy ____ i J ]3._(?_g~r._-~ ezdek, Ph.D., Management __ 2 ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Information Services, Inc) ___ Ex._6_-_Perso_nal_ Privacy__ ! 1 i L---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·. 8, Daniel Botkin, Ph.D., Center for the Study of the Environment,! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i i,_______________________________________________________ • 9, Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., The Heartland Institute, hsbumett@heartland.org,! 6-Personal Privacy! Ex. ·------------------------------------J 10, William Briggs, Ph.D., Author, statistician, and former professor, matt@wmbriggs.com, 11, Jeremy Carl, Ph.D., Hoover Institution, carljc@stanford.edu, 12, Alan Carlin, Ph.D., Competitive Enterprise Institute,[ __ Ex._6_-. Personal _Privacy_ i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000237-00002 _13,_Kevin _Dayaratna, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, kevin.Dayaratna@heritage.org, !_Ex. s-Persona1_Privacy_i !Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i 14, Hal Dorion, Ph.D., The Right Climate Stuff,i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy L ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i } 15, Paul Driessen, JD, CFACT,i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy] L ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ) 16, Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute, mebell@cei.org, 17, Gordon Fulks, Ph.D., The Heartland Institute, i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i '-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· 18, Larry Gould, Ph.D., University of Hartford, lgould@hartford.edu, 19, Kenneth Haapala,, Science and Environmental Policy Project, ken@haapala.com, r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, 20, Veronica Harrison, The Heartland Institute, vharrison@heartland.org, [_Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy_ i 21, Howard Hayden, Ph.D., University of Connecticut (emeritus),[ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i '-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· 22, Tony Heller, RealScience.org, [ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· .·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1 23, Edward Hudgins, Ph.D., The Heartland Institute, ehudgins@heartland.org,i 24, Jim Lakely, The Heartland Institute, jlakely@heartland.org,i Ex. Ex. 6-PersonalPrivacyi' . L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·. s -PersonalPrivacyi !-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·l 25, Jay Lehr, Ph.D., The Heartland Institute,j Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! '·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· 26, Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute, mlewis@cei.org, 27, Tony Lupo, Ph.D., University of Missouri, LupoA@missouri.edu, 28, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., University of Guelph, rmckitri@uoguelph.ca,i Ex. s -PersonalPrivacyj i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ ,._.29~_Ee.rem:_e._Mi~kolczi, Ph.D., Former NASA senior principal scientist,! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i ! i-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-• !i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i! i I i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· 30, Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Cato Institute, pmichaels@cato.org, .--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· 31, Steve Milloy, junkscience.org,! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-• 32, Norm Rogers, The Heartland Institute,l__ Ex.__ 6_-_Personal _Privacy__ ! 33, David Schnare, Ph.D., Energy and Environment Legal Institute,! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· .--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· 34, Dave Stevenson, Ceasar Rodney Institute,! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-• SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000237-00003 35, Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org,i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i ! .--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· . 36, Aaron Stover, The Heartland Institute, astover@heartland.org,!_Ex. s _-_Personal_Privacy j 37, Ronald Sundelin, Ph.D., Virginia Tech,[ __ Ex.__ 6 _- _Personal_ Privacy _j 38, Dan Sutter, Ph.D., Troy University, dsutter@troy.edu,[ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i,•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-• i I r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, __ }_9-,_.!.~1?._~~--!.~.x.!<.?.~c., JD, Spark of Freedom Foundation,! ! j Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! L---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·.i : Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy j t--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ 40, Katie Tubb, Heritage Foundation, katie.tubb@heritage.org, 41, James Wanliss, Ph.D., Presbyterian College,! __ Ex._6__ -_Personal__ Privacy_j 42, Robert Zybach, Ph.D., NW Maps Co., ZybachB@NWMapsCo.com ,[ Ex. 6-Personal Privacy i !-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·l SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000237-00004 EPA Event in Washington, DC June 14 # Expert Affiliation Email phone ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- 1 Charles Anderson, Ph.D. Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc. charles.anderson@andersomnate rials.com 2 Joseph Bast The Heartland Institute jbast@heartland.org ' ; 3 Richard Belzer, Ph.D. Regulatory Checkbook rbbelzer@post.harvard.edu ; Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy 4 Tim Benson, The Heartland Institute tbenson@heartland.org 5 Edwin X. Berry, Ph.D. Climate Physics LLC ed@edberry.com 6 Joe Bevelacqua, Ph.D. Bevelacqua Resources 7 Roger Bezdek, Ph.D. Management Information Services, Inc. 8 Daniel Botkin, Ph.D. Center for the Study of the Enviromnent ~ ; rbezdek@misi-net.com ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· .-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-. ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j 9 Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. The Heartland Institute hsbumett@heartland.org 10 William Briggs, Ph.D. Author, statistician, and former professor matt@wmbriggs.com 11 Jeremy Carl, Ph.D. Hoover Institution carljc@stanford.edu 12 Alan Carlin, Ph.D. Competitive Enterprise Institute 13 Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D. Heritage Foundation r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1 i i ~ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Paul Driessen, JD CFACT 16 Myron Ebell Competitive Enterprise Institute 17 Gordon Fulks, Ph.D. The Heartland Institute 18 Larry Gould, Ph.D. University of Hartford lgould@hartford.edu 19 Kenneth Haapala Science and Environmental Policy Project ken@haapala.com 20 Veronica Harrison The Heartland Institute vharrison@heartland.org ~ i i mebell@cei.org l___ Ex._6_- _Personal_Privacy .J l. ! -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i Ex. 6 - Personal _Privacy i ' i !i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy !i i.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i Ex.__ 6 _-_ Personal __ Privacy __ j 22 Tony Heller RealScience.org 23 Edword Hudgins, Ph.D. The Heartland Institute ehudgins@heartland.org 24 JimLakely The Heartland Institute jlakely@heartland.org Jay Lehr, Ph.D. The Heartland Institute j__Ex.__ 6 _-_Pe_rsonal_ Privacy ___ j Marlo Lewis Competitive Enterprise Institute j___ l,.·-... o • ., ... ", SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 i i i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ii.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i i i 15 26 '! i kevin.Dayaratna@heritage.org The Right Climate Stuff University of Connecticut (emeritus) Privacy i..·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ Hal Dorion, Ph.D. Howard Hayden, Ph.D. '! Ex. 6 - Personal ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy 14 21 . l__ Ex._6_- _Persona_l _Privacy_j f mlewis@cei.org ED_ 001389_00000238-00001 # Expert Affiliation Email phone 27 Tony Lupo, Ph.D. University of Missouri LupoA@missouri.edu 28 Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. University of Guelph rmckitri@uoguelph.ca ,·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1 29 30 Ference Miskolczi, Ph.D. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. Former NASA senior principal scientist i i ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! junkscience.org 32 Norm Rogers The Heartland Institute 33 David Schnare, Ph ..D. Energy and Enviromnent Legal Institute 34 Dave Stevenson Ceasar Rodney Institute 35 Leighton Steward PlantsNeedCO2.org 36 Aaron Stover The Heartland Institute 37 Ronald Sundelin, Ph.D. Virginia Tech 38 Dan Sutter, Ph.D. Troy University James Taylor, JD Spark of Freedom Foundation Ex. 6 - Personal Heritage Foundation 41 James Wanliss, Ph.D. Presbyterian College 42 Robert Zybach, Ph.D. NW Maps Co. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ! ' i i i ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, ! Ex. 6 - Personal ! Privacy Privacy ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ~--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-. ! Ex. 6 - Personal astover@heartland.org i'·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Privacy ! !-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- L i! ! i dsutter@troy.edu i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy r ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! i L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j Katie Tubb ; Privacy ' i.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i i 40 ! Ex. 6 - Personal pmichaels@cato.org r•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•~ 39 i i i i.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Steve Milloy I i i • i i i i i Cato Institute 31 • -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•- i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i katie. tubb@heritage.org l__ Ex. _6_ - _Personal__ Privacy __ i ZybachB@NWMapsCo.com i i ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! ! ii ED_001389_00000238-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 7/10/2017 1:45:22 PM AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL HIT Darren Nelson, promo and trailing for Gore's next movie, debuting in Australia August 24. http://newfarmcinemas.com.au/movie-details/?type=now-showing&movie=ST00001970 Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000239-00001 From: Joseph Bast Fri 7/7/2017 9:13:08 PM Tim Ball and Tom Harris: Time to Debunk Misguided Science Sent: Subject: Excellent piece. Joe ht ://www.the ostcmail.com/2017/07/07/time-dcbunk-mis chmate-agrccment/ i et 1111 c1ence Ii ate uidcd-science-undcrl in - aris- e unk is n erlying ar1s gree ent Ill "THE BIGGEST DECEPTION IN HISTORY" by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, ©2017 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000240-00001 Announcement from the White House made on December 12, 2015 on Paris climate change agreement (Jul. 7, 2017) - On June 1, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change. He correctly identified it as a very bad deal for America. In July 1997, the U.S. Senate reached a similar conclusion about the U.N. climate change policy-making process in general. Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed the Byrd/Ha Jel resolution, which stated that America should not be a signatory to "any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] ... that would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States" and did not include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S. This is why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on the UNFCCC, to the Senate for ratification. It is also why former President Barack Obama approved the Paris Agreement, which also rests on the UNFCCC, as an "executive agreement" instead of submitting it for Senate approval as required by the Constitution for international treaties. He knew that the Senate would reject Paris as not in America's best interests. The Paris Agreement is not just bad for the U.S. According to Australian author and climate analyst llain Aitken, To achieve the goal agreed in Paris of a maximum 2°C increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels has been estimated to have a global cost of $17 trillion by 2040 (about 800 times more than was spent on all the Apollo missions to the moon) - and it would require carbon dioxide reductions about 100 times greater than those pledged in Paris." So, even if the man-made climate change problem were real, the actions specified by the Paris Agreement would solve nothing. And since the climate alarm is not based on sound science, no treaty based on the UNFCCC makes any sense. Kyoto, Paris, Copenhagen, Durban, Cancun, Warsaw, and all the other U.N. climate deals are merely political solutions to a non-existent problem without scientific justification. Yet the Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last month showed that a majority of Americans opposed the President's decision to pull out of Paris. This is largely because most people are unable to differentiate between climate change propaganda, as promoted by the U.N. and activists such as Al Gore, and climate change science conducted by independent researchers. Even pollsters who apparently support the climate scare recognize that public SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000240-00002 knowledge about climate change is poor. For example, in their biased 2010 study "Americans' Knowled e of Climate Chan E?,.,"investigators from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication created a multiple-choice test to examine, "what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming." They concluded, "In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F." The focus therefore must be on educating the public about the realities of climate science. This is especially important now since Trump is talking about the possibility of the U.S. agreeing to a new version of the Paris Agreement, but one "on better terms, fairer terms." There is no need for a deal at all since there never was a problem in the first place. On June 30, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that he is launching a program to critique climate change science. He will apparently bring in experts from both sides of the debate in order to determine the actual state of the science, something the EPA should have done long before saddling industry with expensive climate change regulations. Global warming campaigners will do everything in their power to block Pruitt's review since it will demonstrate that, rather than being settled in favor of climate alarm as eco-activists claim, the science is still immature. Those who created the global warming scare knew that 85% of the public would not understand the science and the remaining 15% would not question it. Pruitt must therefore use his evaluation to help the public understand what is, and what is not, known about climate change science. He must also promote the concept that "being a skeptic ... is quite alright," as Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last month. Indeed, science requires unfettered skepticism to advance. But the climate scare is more like an extreme religion than science at this point. And, when people start questioning such extreme belief systems, they rapidly lose the blind faith essential to the religion's survival. Handled effectively, the EPA science evaluation should lead many in the public to ask their representatives, "Why are you supporting the expenditure of billions of tax dollars on such an uncertain cause when funds are desperately needed to address society's real, well understood issues?" Aside from ignorance, or cowardice in the face of political correctness, politicians will have no answer. The climate scare, the biggest deception in history, will then be over. Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based !International Climate Science Coalition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000240-00003 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 To: From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Konkus,John Mon 6/5/2017 9:50:45 PM RE: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Thank you. From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:48 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: RE: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Cato Institute, pmichaels@ cato.org Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute, mebc1l@cei.org Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, kevin.Da aratna@ hcritagQJKg Ben Zycher, Ph.D., AEI, Bcnjamin.Zychcr@AEI.org Tom Pyle, IER, p le@ cncrg dc.org Steve Milloy, Junkscience.org, i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy j i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Joe From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:41 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Re: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Send me their I emails. They each represent a unique group so they should each get an invite. Thank you. John Konkus Deputy Associate Administrator SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000243-00001 Office of Public Affairs Environmental Protection Agency . Cell:: ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy j_-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-• i I On Jun 5, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Joseph Bast wrote: Thanks! One more question, can you or have you arranged for invitations to out to the following individuals? I could supply email addresses if you need them. I could invite them myself, but it would be nice if they were not "counted" against the number of others I end up bringing with me. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Cato Institute Myron Ebell, CEI Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation Ben Zycher, Ph.D., AEI Tom Pyle, IER Steve Milloy, Junkscicnce.org Joe From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:18 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: RE: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting I have confirmed that tomorrow's meeting is an internal meeting. The meeting on the 14th is the public meeting. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000243-00002 Also, an organization is not limited to only one attendee. You should be able to bring others. From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@hcartland.org] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:00 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: FW: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting John, This invitation doesn't say anything about my being able to invite guests. Can you please confirm that, before I start to invite others, or do you recommend I direct my inquiry to Martha Otto or Francesca Grifo? Also, no mention of a meeting tomorrow, which I could call in for, and/or have some of Heartland's Washington DC staff attend in person. Joe From: Otto, Martha [mailto:Otto.Martha@epa.gov] On Behalf Of Scientific Integrity Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 3:42 PM Subject: EPA Scientific Integrity Stakeholder Meeting Greetings, It is my pleasure to invite you to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting. At this year's meeting, as the EPA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000243-00003 Scientific Integrity Official, I will answer your questions, share current scientific integrity initiatives, and discuss future plans for scientific integrity at EPA. Please RSVP to scientific inte · y@ cpa.go__y as soon as possible. Let us know if you plan to attend in person, by phone, or by AdobeConnect. Details are as follows: EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting Wednesday, June 14th,2017 3:00-5:00 PM Ronald Reagan Building Mezzanine, Room 301 A-B RSVP Required: scientific integritv@epa.gov Audioconference No:! Ex. 6 · Personal Privacy ~ode:! i.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i *To access this meeting, attendees must check in with security using a valid governmentissued photo ID. All attendees should RSVP to facilitate their admittance to the building. I hope that you will join me to learn more about how we are ensuring a culture of scientific integrity at EPA. Sincerely, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000243-00004 Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D. Scientific Integrity Official US EPA Office of the Science Advisor 202-564-1687 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000243-00005 To: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Bee: 'bndunlop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato .org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland .org']; 'meredith.schultz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@aei.org']; 'myron.ebell@cei.org'['myron.ebell@cei.org']; L---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-~~-'-~-~--"-~!?.P..l'!~.LP.!.!~~-~.Y-._·_·_·_·_·,_. ____________________ ___i'll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i 'JBast@heartland.org'['JBast@heartland.org'] 'From:-·-·-·-·Konkus, J"ohn-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·' Sent: Subject: Sun 6/4/2017 5 :01: 12 PM ICYMI: Pruitt Hits Three Sunday Shows In Case You Missed It EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared on three Sunday talk shows this morning. Below are the highlights. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on NBC's Meet the Press on the bright future of American energy: NBC'S CHUCK TODD: "He is right that you are making a false promise to some of the fossil fuel industries?" ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: "Dead wrong. The numbers show the exact opposite. Since the fourth quarter of last year to most recently added 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, 7,000 [mining and drilling] jobs. Here's what's key about our power grid in this country. You have to have fuel diversity, Chuck. because if we go to an all renewable, all natural gas type of approach, if there is an attack on the transportation network, there is only so much natural gas that can go into that facility to generate electricity. We need solids stored on site to draw down upon for threats to our grid. Fuel diversity, stability, consistency is key to the manufacturing base. It's also key to keeping costs low. Our price per kilowatt is far less in Germany, far less than what it is in Europe. We need to keep that approach." Administrator Pruitt on ABC's This Week on the "euphoric" response to the President's decision on the Paris Agreement from the small business community: ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: "Well, when you look at, even the 'New York Times' had an article, I think, within the last couple of days that talked about small business celebrating, euphoria, with respect to the president's decision. I mean, it's very speculative in my estimation, George, for those multinational companies to say this is going to somehow impact the exporting of green technology across the globe. What we do know, what we do know objectively, is that the Paris agreement represented a $2.5 trillion reduction in our Gross Domestic Product over ten years. What we do know, is that it impacted up to 400,000 jobs as well. And so this is something that was bad for our country, this makes common sense. That when you take energy sector jobs and say, 'we're no longer going to produce energy in those sectors' it is going to impact the manufacturing base and the energy jobs in this country. We've had over 50,000 jobs since last quarter. Coal jobs, mining jobs, created in this country. We've had almost 7,000 mining and coal jobs created in the month of May alone. The unemployment rate is 4.3% as you know, George. This president's deregulation agenda, particularly in the energy space, is making a substantial impact on the jobs across this country and giving people hope. And I will say this to you, it's also rejecting SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000246-00001 the previous administration's view that you can't grow jobs and protect the environment, because as I indicated earlier, we have reduced our CO2 footprint with action, from 2000 to 2014 by over 18% through innovation and technology." Administrator Pruitt on Fox's Fox News Sunday on the President's regulation philosophy: ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: "This President has said we truly need an all above approach. We should not penalize sectors of our economy, Chris. Government regulation shouldn't be used to pick winners and losers. The past administration declared a war on coal and there were several coal facilities across this country shut down because of their past efforts. That is not what government regulation should be about. Government regulation should be about making things regular, not picking winners and losers and making sure we have fuel diversity in generating electricity in this country. And as I indicated the job numbers show already, already, that this President's deregulatory agenda, his leadership in the energy space is making a difference for jobs across this country, almost 50,000 in the coal sector alone." ### SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000246-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Konkus,John Wed 5/31/2017 11:37:39 AM RE: Invitation Thank you Sir. From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:16 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: RE: Invitation John, Here are the revised spreadsheets with bio information for everyone. Also added a few addresses and email addresses that were missing from the earlier versions. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000247-00001 To: From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Konkus,John Tue 6/27/2017 6:35:43 PM FW: Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule If you all want to put out a statement, please feel free ... From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:32 PM Subject: Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule More than just talk ... Joe From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmai119.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:21 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: WSJ: Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ... WSJ: Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule Trump, EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule New Rule Would Reverse Obama Administration's Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, Rule The Wall Street Journal Eli Stokols June 27, 2017 https ://www.wsj.com/articles/tru mp-e I a-move- to-rescind-o bama-admin istrations-clean-water-ru le1498586400 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000248-00001 President Donald Trump's administration is moving ahead with plans to dismantle another piece of the Obama administration's environmental legacy, the rule that sought to protect clean drinking water by expanding Washington's power to regulate major rivers and lakes as well as smaller streams and wetlands. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Army and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are proposing a new rule that would rescind the Obama administration's Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule and "re-codify the regulatory text" that existed before its adoption in 2015, according to a press release obtained by The Wall Street Journal that will be sent out Tuesday afternoon. That action, the agencies contend, "would provide certainty in the interim" while a new rule-making process is undertaken. Coming almost a month after Mr. Trump announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, Tuesday's move is another sign the new administration and the EPA under administrator Scott Pruitt intend to prioritize the economic concerns of industry and agricultural interests over environmental concerns and, more broadly, to erase significant pieces of Mr. Obama's legacy. "We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation's farmers and businesses," Mr. Pruitt said in a statement. To Continue Reading Click Here U.S. Environrn1=:ntalProtection Agency i200 Pennsylvania Avenue Norlhwest Washington, D.C 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000248-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Konkus,John Mon 5/29/2017 10:31:50 PM Re: Invitation Sounds good. John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile:! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· On May 29, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Joseph Bast wrote: It occurs to me only now that I removed the column w each person's qualifications and affiliations, and you may need that, I can add it back, with some effort tomorrow. I'm on the road for next four hours. Joe Sent from my V cri70n, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------From: Joseph Bast Date: 5/29/17 11:56 AM (GMT-06:00) To: "Konkus, John" Subject: RE: Invitation John, Attached are spreadsheets for Heartland's lists of U.S. climate scientists and climate economists for whom we have email or snailmail addresses. I removed all international contacts and folks for whom we don't have sufficient contact information. Please invite them to EPA's meeting on "science integrity" in June. I hope you will invite me to attend as well, since I know and have worked with many of the people on these lists and, while not a scientist, have written extensively on climate science and economics. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000249-00001 I don't need (more) attention or controversy, and perhaps neither do you. But ... * should I tell these folks via email that they will be receiving an invitation from you? * should I tell a larger group of allies and friends that you "may be able to get you an invitation to attend the June meeting on "science integrity" and suggest folks contact you? * should I let Kimberley A. Strassel know I reached out to you, and you agreed to invite some people I recommended? I'm happy to do all or none of these things per your instructions. I see the Union of Concerned Socialists has responded to Strassel' s column: n -wall-street-·oumal-isshort-of-facts Joe From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:52 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Re: Invitation SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000249-00002 That works Sir. Send me what you have please and we'll make it work. Thank you again. John Konkus Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Public Affairs Cell: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i !-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·l On May 26, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Joseph Bast wrote: Mr. Konkus, .-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, Sorry I'm out of the office today, and about toi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i L---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-' I can definitely provide you with a list of distinguished and independent scientists, economists, and policy experts, though perhaps not anymore today. Do you have a preferred format? I have email addresses for most, and snailmail addresses for most, but not both for all. I can provide you the list in an Excell spreadsheet. Please let me know. Best regards, Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000249-00003 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, May 26, 201711:31 AM To: Joseph Bast Cc: Dewey, Amy Subject: Invitation Mr. Bast: I just left you a voice message inquiring if you might have a list of scientists and economists who would be interested in receiving an invitation to an upcoming "science integrity" meeting here at EPA in June? If you send a list, we will make sure an invitation is sent. Thank you Sir and enjoy the holiday weekend. John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000249-00004 Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile:! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i L·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000249-00005 To: From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Konkus,John Fri 5/26/2017 5:51 :41 PM Re: Invitation That works Sir. Send me what you have please and we'll make it work. Thank you again. John Konkus Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Public Affairs Cell: i_Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i On May 26, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Joseph Bast wrote: Mr. Konkus, .-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, Sorry I'm out of the office today, and about to i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i L---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-' I can definitely provide you with a list of distinguished and independent scientists, economists, and policy experts, though perhaps not anymore today. Do you have a preferred format? I have email addresses for most, and snailmail addresses for most, but not both for all. I can provide you the list in an Excell spreadsheet. Please let me know. Best regards, Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000252-00001 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, May 26, 201711:31 AM To: Joseph Bast Cc: Dewey, Amy Subject: Invitation Mr. Bast: I just left you a voice message inquiring if you might have a list of scientists and economists who would be interested in receiving an invitation to an upcoming "science integrity" meeting here at EPA in June? If you send a list, we will make sure an invitation is sent. Thank you Sir and enjoy the holiday weekend. John Konkus SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000252-00002 Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile: !___ Ex._6_ -_Personal _Privacy_j SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000252-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Konkus,John Mon 6/12/2017 3:29:04 PM Re: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Would be awesome if the headline/theme of whatever article/blog gets written is "Beyond Paris". On Jun 12, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Jim Lakely wrote: Sure. Looking forward to the call. Do you think you and others at EPA would join us for our strategy meeting in DC on Tuesday and Wednesday? We had planned a program to help with messaging and communications leading up to the meeting Grife canceled. We're still going on with the meeting. It will be at the Capitol Skyline Hotel in SW, just a couple blocks north of Nationals Park. Here's the schedule: Tuesday, June 13 - MC: Jim Lakely lrpmker Presentation T:alfiics:Steve Milloy Opening Remarks: What Needs to Be Done p.m. I Sl316nce:Jay Lehr How to Summarize the Scientific Debate in p.m. 30 minutes or Less Spl(hker Training: Veronica Tips for Effective Public Speaking plmrison llaw: David Schnare Inside and Outside EPA: How to Reform the p.m. Beast W@tfp-up:Joe Bast Closing remarks and adjourn p.m. Wednesday, June 14 - MC: Jim Lakely tf:alfiics:Myron Ebell Opening Remarks: What Needs to be Done am. ll 91316nce:Pat Michaels a.m. E0olibmics: Kevin Juny.aratna E~y Policy: Roger Where the Science Debate Stands Right Now Demolishing the Social Cost of Carbon Argument The Case for Fossil Fuels SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000255-00001 Jilm.dek $f,i:.Otker Training: Beverly f,Iallberg, District Media Group W@tfp-up:Joe Bast p.m. Effective Public Speaking Strategies Closing remarks Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John ========~::::..!., Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 9:44 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Jim: I'll call you on this below. Looking for some echo help here ... United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 U.S. Formally Joins Communique, Reaching Consensus On Important Environmental Issues June 12, 2017 Bologna, Italy - Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the United States stands firm on its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has reset the conversation about climate change reflective of the new priorities of the Trump Administration and the expectations of the American people. "Respective of the importance to engage with longstanding allies and key international SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000255-00002 partners, we approached the climate discussions head on from a position of strength and clarity. We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress. Today's action of reaching consensus makes clear that the Paris Agreement is not the only mechanism by which environmental stewardship can be demonstrated. It also demonstrates our commitment to honest conversations, which are the cornerstone of constructive international dialogue," said Administrator Scott Pruitt. While a party to the communique, the United States did not join the climate change sections, explicitly stating: We the United States of America continue to demonstrate through action, having reduced our CO2 footprint as demonstrated by achieving pre-1994 CO2 levels domestically. The United States will continue to engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment. Accordingly, we the United States do not join those sections of the communique on climate and MDBs, reflecting our recent announcement to withdraw and immediately cease implementation of the Paris Agreement and associated financial commitment. The United States and its G7 counterparts found common ground engaging in robust and constructive dialogue regarding other, equally important environmental issues. The United States joined consensus throughout the communique including the sections discussing resource efficiency, marine litter, and environmental policies and jobs. "The United States will continue to show leadership by offering action-oriented solutions to the world's environmental challenges. We have indicated a willingness to engage on an international stage that stands to greatly benefit from American ingenuity, innovation, and advanced technologies. We have already demonstrated significant progress towards mitigating environmental problems and we will continue to develop these for the benefit of all nations," Administrator Pruitt said. BACKGROUND ... G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting's Press Release "We, the G7 Environment Ministers and high representatives, and European Commissioners responsible for environment and climate, met in Bologna on 11-12 June 2017. We were joined by heads and senior officials of International Organizations and by representatives of universities and firms." (G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting, Press !Release, 06/12/17) http:/ /usenviron mentalprotectionaqency. email 19.corn/t/d-i-kilihu 1-1-j/ SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000255-00003 U.S. Environmf;ntai Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northweist Washington, D.C 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000255-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Bee: 'bndun lop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato.org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland.org']; 'meredith.schultz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@aei.org']; 'myron.ebell@cei.org'['myron.ebell@cei.org']; j l'll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; To: Ex. 6 _ Personal Privacy L--·-·-·-·-•-·-·-·-·-•-•-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-•-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-•-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-•-·-·-·-·-·-•-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John Tue 5/23/2017 9:06:27 PM ICYMI: Western Caucus and EPA Administrator Pruitt Meet to Return Accountability to the People In Case You Missed It... For Immediate Release Contact: Kelly Roberson Date: May 23, 2017 Western Caucus and EPA Administrator Pruitt Meet to Return Accountability to the People WASHINGTON, D.C. -Today, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, Congressional Western Caucus Chairman Paul A. Gosar D.D.S. (AZ-04) and Vice-Chairman for Indian Affairs and Oceans Don Young (AK-At Large) and Western Caucus members Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01) and Rep. Blake Farenthold (TX-27) released the following statements after a roundtable discussion between Western Caucus members and Administrator Pruitt: "I look forward to working together with the Western Caucus on issues unique to western states and their constituencies. Locally elected officials and the citizens they represent are the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000257-00001 best stewards of their own natural resources. They want to protect their environment and grow their economies, and EPA is going to help them do that by improving our partnership with states," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. "The hallmark of the Obama Administration's EPA was blatant misinformation, bold-faced lies and a hell-bent determination to drive our economy and jobs into the ground in order to curry favor with extremist special-interest groups," said Chairman Gosar. "Prior to leading the EPA, Scott Pruitt led the charge to defeat some of the most onerous and particularly spiteful regulations promulgated by an out-of-control agency with a power trip verging on megalomania. Today's meeting was a welcome breath of fresh air and I look forward to working with Administrator Pruitt on fact-based and commonsense policies that promote an all of-the-above energy strategy, provide sensible protections, return to the Rule of Law, and foster economic prosperity." "Alaskans demand an EPA that is a partner of the people, not a relentless adversary," said Congressman Don Young. "After eight long years, we need an Administrator that will take seriously the rule of law, recognize the social and economic impacts of their decisions, and place value on local voices rather than extreme environmentalist. I'm pleased to continue our work with Administrator Pruitt and to begin addressing a number of critical issues facing the Alaskan people." Congressman LaMalfa stated, "I appreciate Administrator Pruitt taking the time to meet with us to discuss important issues that we must tackle in the upcoming months. I urged him to look into the Duarte case, in which a farmer in my district is being heavily penalized under the Clean Water Act because his furrows are characterized as 'miniature mountain ranges.' I look forward to working with Administrator Pruitt on policy reforms that will peel back unnecessary regulations and allow farmers to simply plow their fields." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000257 -00002 Congressman Farenthold said, "I am pleased to know that Administrator Pruitt recognizes the importance of a sound regulatory framework and the dangers that sue and settle agreements can pose to it. I look forward to working with him to end this practice and restore transparency to our government. The Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment, will lead a hearing tomorrow to further discuss sue and settle agreements." Background: Today, the Congressional Western Caucus hosted EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for the Monthly Member Meeting and Speaker Series. The Congressional Western Caucus currently has 71 bipartisan members. Click HERE to see the full membership list. At today's meeting Administrator Pruitt discussed the 22 regulatory actions taken by the agency since he took over that have positively impacted 1.4 million jobs. The Administrator also made clear that he adamant defends the Rule of Law, supports restructuring the agency to get employees closer to people on the ground, and favors a restoration of process at the EPA as "regulations should make things regular." The group also discussed President Trump's Executive Order on Energy Independence and the EPA's review of the job-killing Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rules put forth by the Obama Administration, amongst other pressing issues. (Scott Pruitt Bio Courtesy of the Environmental Protection Agency) Scott Pruitt was confirmed as the 14th Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 17, 2017. Administrator Pruitt believes that promoting and protecting a strong and healthy environment is among the lifeblood priorities of the government, and the EPA is vital to that mission. Pruitt is committed to ensuring the EPA gets back to the basics of managing our environment by engaging with state, local and tribal partners to create sensible regulations that enhance rather than inhibit - economic growth. Within the first two months of his leadership, Pruitt has spearheaded over two dozen significant regulatory reform actions including the review of the Waters of the United States rule and the Clean Power Plan. Prior to serving on President Trump's cabinet, Pruitt served as Oklahoma's Attorney General where he became a national leader through a career of advocating to keep power in the hands of hard-working Americans. He has a proven track record of working with others - including industry, farmers, ranchers, landowners and small business owners - who want to do the right SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389 _ 00000257 -00003 thing by the environment. Pruitt also served eight years in the Oklahoma State Senate in addition to co-owning and managing Oklahoma City's Triple-A minor league baseball affiliate. Pruitt played baseball for the University of Kentucky, earned his bachelor's degree from Georgetown College and graduated from the University of Tulsa College of Law. He and Marlyn, his wife of 27 years proudly raised their two children in Tulsa. ### WEBSITE UNSUBSCRIBE SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000257 -00004 To: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] From: Konkus,John Sent: Mon 6/12/2017 2:55:57 PM Subject: RE: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Yes. I would like to attend at some point. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:54 AM To: Konkus, John Subject: RE: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Sure. Looking forward to the call. Do you think you and others at EPA would join us for our strategy meeting in DC on Tuesday and Wednesday? We had planned a program to help with messaging and communications leading up to the meeting Grife canceled. We're still going on with the meeting. It will be at the Capitol Skyline Hotel in SW, just a couple blocks north of Nationals Park. Here's the schedule: Tuesday, June 13 - MC: Jim Lakely !'pmker Presentation T:alftics:Steve Milloy Opening Remarks: What Needs to Be Done p.m. I Si:46nce:Jay Lehr How to Summarize the Scientific Debate in p.m. 30 minutes or Less Sifilaker Training: Veronica Tips for Effective Public Speaking p[mrison ltaw: David Schnare Inside and Outside EPA: How to Reform the p.m. Beast W@Op-up: Joe Bast Closing remarks and adjourn p.m. Wednesday, June 14-MC: Jim Lakely Cf:alftics: Myron Ebell Opening Remarks: What Needs to be Done a.m. II Si:46nce:Pat Michaels Where the Science Debate Stands Right SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000258-00001 a.m. Hhfilbmics: Kevin filny.aratna E~y Policy: Roger lilm.dek $f,i:OtkerTraining: Beverly plmlberg, District Media Group W@{}p-up: Joe Bast p.m. Now Demolishing the Social Cost of Carbon Argument The Case for Fossil Fuels Effective Public Speaking Strategies Closing remarks Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John=========='-'-' Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 9:44 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 - Preview Jim: I'll call you on this below. Looking for some echo help here ... United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 U.S. Formally Joins Communique, Reaching Consensus On Important Environmental Issues June 12, 2017 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_ 00000258-00002 Bologna, Italy - Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the United States stands firm on its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has reset the conversation about climate change reflective of the new priorities of the Trump Administration and the expectations of the American people. "Respective of the importance to engage with longstanding allies and key international partners, we approached the climate discussions head on from a position of strength and clarity. We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress. Today's action of reaching consensus makes clear that the Paris Agreement is not the only mechanism by which environmental stewardship can be demonstrated. It also demonstrates our commitment to honest conversations, which are the cornerstone of constructive international dialogue, " said Administrator Scott Pruitt. While a party to the communique, the United States did not join the climate change sections, explicitly stating: We the United States of America continue to demonstrate through action, having reduced our CO2 footprint as demonstrated by achieving pre-1994 CO2 levels domestically. The United States will continue to engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment. Accordingly, we the United States do not join those sections of the communique on climate and MDBs, reflecting our recent announcement to withdraw and immediately cease implementation of the Paris Agreement and associated financial commitment. The United States and its G7 counterparts found common ground engaging in robust and constructive dialogue regarding other, equally important environmental issues. The United States joined consensus throughout the communique including the sections discussing resource efficiency, marine litter, and environmental policies and jobs. "The United States will continue to show leadership by offering action-oriented solutions to the world's environmental challenges. We have indicated a willingness to engage on an international stage that stands to greatly benefit from American ingenuity, innovation, and advanced technologies. We have already demonstrated significant progress towards mitigating environmental problems and we will continue to develop these for the benefit of all nations," Administrator Pruitt said. BACKGROUND ... G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting's Press Release "We, the G7 Environment Ministers and high representatives, and European Commissioners responsible for environment and climate, met in Bologna on 11-12 June 2017. We were joined by heads and senior officials of International Organizations and by representatives of universities and firms." (G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting, Press Release, 06/12/17) http://usenviron mentalprotectionaqency. email 19.corn/Ud-i-kilih u 1-1-j/ SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000258-00003 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000258-00004 To: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] 'bndunlop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato.org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland.org']; _'meredith._schu_ltz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@flei.orgJ;_'myron.ebell@cei.org'['myron.ebell@cei.org']; 1 Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy 1ll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; i__ ___________________________ §~:-~_:_~E:r_s_?_n_a~ __P._r!~~':.L. __________________________ j}oseph Bas't[JBast@heartland.org] From: Konkus, John Sent: Mon 6/12/2017 2:51:26 PM Subject: United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 Bee: Social media, blog and statement echo opportunity. Twitter: h s://twitter.com/EP A/status/87 4276429759827969 Twitter: h s://twitter.com/EPAScottPruitt/status/87 4270204259389442 Web version: =h=~~~~F-=--=~~~~~~~=~~~~~~==~===e~-=d1=·s~c=u=ss=i=o~ngl United States Resets Climate Change Discussion At G7 U.S. Formally Joins Communique, Reaching Consensus On Important Environmental Issues June 12, 2017 Bologna, Italy - Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the United States stands firm on its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has reset the conversation about climate change reflective of the new priorities of the Trump Administration and the expectations of the American people. "Respective of the importance to engage with longstanding allies and key international partners, we approached the climate discussions head on from a position of strength and clarity. We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress. Today's action of reaching consensus makes clear that the Paris Agreement is not the only mechanism by which environmental stewardship can be demonstrated. It also demonstrates our commitment to honest conversations, which are the cornerstone of constructive international dialogue, " said Administrator Scott Pruitt. While a party to the communique, the United States did not join the climate change sections, explicitly stating: We the United States of America continue to demonstrate through action, having reduced our CO2 footprint as demonstrated by achieving pre-1994 CO2 levels domestically. The United States will SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000259-00001 continue to engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment. Accordingly, we the United States do not join those sections of the communique on climate and MDBs, reflecting our recent announcement to withdraw and immediately cease implementation of the Paris Agreement and associated financial commitment. The United States and its G7 counterparts found common ground engaging in robust and constructive dialogue regarding other, equally important environmental issues. The United States joined consensus throughout the communique including the sections discussing resource efficiency, marine litter, and environmental policies and jobs. "The United States will continue to show leadership by offering action-oriented solutions to the world's environmental challenges. We have indicated a willingness to engage on an international stage that stands to greatly benefit from American ingenuity, innovation, and advanced technologies. We have already demonstrated significant progress towards mitigating environmental problems and we will continue to develop these for the benefit of all nations," Administrator Pruitt said. BACKGROUND ... G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting's Press Release "We, the G7 Environment Ministers and high representatives, and European Commissioners responsible for environment and climate, met in Bologna on 11-12 June 2017. We were joined by heads and senior officials of International Organizations and by representatives of universities and firms." (G7 Bologna Environment Ministers' Meeting, Press Release, 06/12/17) IJ.S Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000259-00002 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Bee: 'bndunlop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato .org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland .org']; 'meredith.schultz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@aei.org']; 'myron.ebell@cei.org'['myron.ebell@cei.org']; i ! 'll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; To: Ex. 6 _ Personal Privacy '·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· From: Konkus, John Wed 5/17/2017 4:24:54 PM FYI: Bill Signed by President Trump Gives EPA's WIFIA Program Additional Help to Meet Communities' Water Infrastructure Needs Sent: Subject: FYI FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 17, 2017 Bill Signed by President Trump Gives EPA's WIFIA Program Additional Help to Meet Communities' Water Infrastructure Needs Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 Increases Amount Available for EPA Water Infrastructure Loans to $1.5 Billion WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program received an additional $8 million for credit subsidy in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 which was signed into law by President Donald Trump on May 5, 2017. This additional funding, combined with the $17 million appropriated for credit subsidy in December 2016, will allow the WIFIA program to lend approximately $1.5 billion for water infrastructure projects, a key component of the President's infrastructure agenda. "Thanks to President Trump and Congress, this additional funding will accelerate the construction of projects to meet communities' water infrastructure needs. This investment will empower states, municipalities, companies, and public-private partnerships to solve real environmental problems in our communities, like the need for clean and safe water," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. In response to the Notice of Funding Availability issued on January 10, 2017, EPA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000261-00001 received 43 letters of interest for WIFIA loans from public and private entities with a collective request of $6 billion in WIFIA loans. These letters demonstrate the high need to invest in water infrastructure improvements in communities across the nation and the value that WIFIA financing can offer. Combined with other sources, such as EPA's State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans, private equity, and municipal bonds, these projects cost could address over $12 billion in infrastructure needs. Entities are seeking financing for a wide array of water and wastewater projects, including repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of aging treatment plants and pipe systems and construction of new infrastructure for desalination, water recycling, and drought mitigation. EPA is currently evaluating projects eligibility, credit worthiness, engineering feasibility, and alignment with WIFIA's statutory and regulatory criteria. Through this competitive process, EPA will select projects that it intends to fund and invite them to continue to the application process this summer. Established by the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014, the WIFIA program is a new federal loan and guarantee program at EPA that aims to accelerate investment in our nation's water by providing long-term, low-cost supplemental credit assistance for regionally and nationally significant projects. For more information about the WI FIA program, visit: ~=:...:....::.:....:..:....::..::...:...::::..i=.::i..::::...::...:....::..:= R090 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000261-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: J Lakely@heartland.org[J La kely@heartland.org] Konkus,John Fri 6/9/2017 5:35:57 PM FW: Postponement of Scientific Stakeholder meeting scheduled for 6/14/2017 From: Sinks, Tom Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 1:29 PM To: Otto, Martha ; Hubbard, Carolyn Cc: Siciliano, CarolAnn ; Sinks, Tom ; Knapp, Kristien ; Grifo, Francesca ; Kavlock, Robert ; Greene, Mary ; Brantner, Emily K. ; Konkus, John ; Linkins, Samantha ; Greene, Mary Subject: Postponement of Scientific Stakeholder meeting scheduled for 6/14/2017 As you know, Francesca Grifoi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy j L.Ex. _6_- _Personal_Privacy__!I expected her to let us know if would be able to host the stakeholder meeting on Wednesday. I have not heard from her andi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy irherefore, I am postponing the meeting. We will set another date one~ she is better. Attached is a desk statement and Qs and As re the postponement. In addition - Marty Otto will start to distribute the following email to all of those previously invited or having RSVP' d. Sam will you please share this with the folks in communications with congressional staffers. Thanks so much for everybody's help with this so far. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000262-00001 Desk statement Postponement of EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting Scheduled for June 14, 2107 ReleaseDate: June 9, 2017 Pressofficer: xxx The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is postponing its Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting, which was scheduled for June 14, 2017. The meeting will be rescheduled based upon Dr. Grifo's availability. The annual stakeholder meeting is an opportunity for representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and regulated industry to hear from the Agency's Scientific Integrity Official and to comment on, or ask questions about, scientific integrity at EPA. At this year's meeting, the EPA Scientific Integrity Official will share information about current scientific integrity initiatives, discuss future plans for scientific integrity at EPA, and answer questions. TechnicalPOC: Thomas Sinks, Ph.D., Director, Office of the Science Advisor Interviewee: Dr. Sinks CommunicationsPOC: Carolyn Hubbard, ORD Commu.nications Director Background: EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy, which was issued in February 2012, provides a framework to ensure scientific integrity throughout EPA and to promote scientific and ethical standards, communications with the public, the use of peer review and advisory committees, and professional development. Scientific integrity is also about transparency. Holding meetings with external stakeholders to share what EPA is doing and to hear their views is part of the process. EPA's Scientific Integrity Official meets annually with interested external stakeholders. The annual stakeholder meetings are an opportunity for stakeholders to hear from the EPA Scientific Integrity Official and to ask questions. Questionsand Answers: 1. Why is EPApostponingthe stakeholdermeeting? The stakeholdermeeting is being postponedbecauseDr. FrancescaGrifo is unableto host the meeting at this time. 2. I registeredfor the stakeholdermeeting. Will I still be registeredfor the rescheduledmeeting? The stakeholdermeeting will be rescheduledas soon as possible.Oncewe have a new date, we will send an invitation to all who had been invited previously.Inviteeswill then have the opportunity to registerfor the rescheduledmeeting. 3. How long hasthe Agencyheld these annual stakeholdermeetings? 1 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000263-00001 The Scientific Integrity program at EPA has been holding these annual external stakeholder meetings since 2014. 4. Why is scientific integrity important? Scientific integrity ensures objectivity, clarity, reproducibility, from bias, fabrication, falsification, at the Environmental and utility. It provides insulation plagiarism, outside interference, and censorship. The science Protection Agency is robust and ready to meet the task of guiding our work to protect human health and the environment. From the earliest formation of a scientific question to the application of those research results, scientific integrity creates protections for science from inappropriate interference, manipulation or suppression. This assures that EPA decisions are based on the best science the Agency, its contractors, grantees, and collaborators have to offer. 5. Who is invited to attend the stakeholder meeting? In 2014 and 2015, EPA participated in two separate stakeholder meetings, one hosted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the other hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). ACC and UCS each distributed invitations to their partners. In 2016 and 2017, we decided to hold a single meeting at EPA. We distributed invitations to stakeholders who attended the UCS meeting and to ACC. ACC shared our invitation with its staff and announced the meeting in its weekly membership newsletter. This year, after the initial invitations were distributed, we sent additional invitations directly to associations representing state governments and the regulated community, such as the Heritage Foundation and the Environmental Council of the States. 6. Are representatives of the regulated community invited to attend? And if so, how is that done? Yes. Since 2014, the ACC has announced our meeting to its staff and members. This year, EPA also sent invitations directly to groups representing state government and the regulated community. 7. What can you tell me about a specific active allegation of a loss of scientific integrity? We treat allegations of a loss of scientific integrity confidentially. information 8. We do not provide any about active allegations. Why was only one out of 50+ initial invitations sent to a representative of the regulated community? This year we sent out invitations in the same manner as we did in 2016. Our announcement sent to the ACC and distributed was by them to ACC staff and members. It was announced multiple times in the weekly ACC membership newsletter. ACC's members represent a broad range of industries, including chemical, agricultural, and oil and gas companies. With the help of ACC, our invitation reaches a large number of industry representatives. 2 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000263-00002 9. Why have you not issued a report on the findings from the January 2016 EPA employee survey on Scientific Integrity? A draft survey report is still under development. 10. Has the new administration tried to influence or diminish the EPA Scientific Integrity work? No. We continue to promote the value of scientific integrity across EPA and to conduct our work, as best we can, given our available staff and resources. 3 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000263-00003 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Bee: 'bndunlop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato .org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland .org']; 'meredith.schultz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@aei.org']; Dewey, Amy[Dewey.Amy@epa.gov]; 'myron .ebell@cei.org'['myron .ebell@cei.org'];i_______________________________________ Ex._6. -_Personal_Privacy _____ i 'll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·From: Konkus, John ' Sent: Wed 5/17/2017 1:39:28 PM Subject: ICYMI: Admin. Pruitt on Fox News This Morning To: In Case You Missed It EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt On Cleaning Up Last Administration's Toxic Mess Fox News May 17, 2017 h ://vidco.foxncws.com/v/543760155500 I/? ADMIN. SCOTT PRUITT: let me tell you what is going on. president trump trying his best to drain the swamp. much of that draining happened at the environmental protection agency after the obama administration left behind get this a huge toxic mess. AINSLEY EARHARDT: more than 1300 super fund sites which are heavily contaminated still require clean up STEVE DOOCY: apparently that's still just the beginning. e.p.a. administrator mr. scott pruitt joins us live. good morning to you. : the press made president obama out to be the environmental savior. yet, when you look at the plate, it's a big number. ADMIN. PRUITT: absolutely. in fact, ainsley, you said these fights across the country have some of the uranium and led, posing great risk to the citizens in those areas. examples where the e.p.a. didn't take any steps at all. a site outside of st. louis called westlake that's taken the e.p.a. 27 years to make a decision. not clean it up but make a decision on what should be done to clean itup. DOOCY: that's crosses democrat and republican administrations. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000264-00001 ADMIN. PRUITT: absolutely. i think when you look at the environmental left they look at the past administration as environmental savior. look at areas in the country that don't meet the air quality standards almost 40% of the country that qualify there. 120 million people. we had gold king in colorado. flint in michigan with water. super fund sites across the country. the area they struck them down twice. the supreme court struck them down twice. EARHARDT: does this mean can you get cancer if you are exposed to all of AD MIN. PRUITT: this quite possibly, yes. that's why it's so important to focus the core of the mission on those areas. this president is a doer. action oriented leader. the past administration talked a lot. this administration is actually doing things to clean up the environment. focusing on those areas you mentioned. BRIAN KILMEADE: super fund sites that need to be cleaned up. what's first target. ADMIN. PRUITT: we are very focused on east lake. chicago. a site that has led. KILMEADE: do you know how to do it. ADMIN. PRUITT: we have a plan in place going to announce very soon on westlake. it's very important to make those citizens know we are going to take steps to clean up and china up quickly. EARHARDT: mr. pruitt, we are talking about memos and what's happening in the white house. this is what the american public really needs to be foe cuffed on, right? steve: our personal safety. ainsley: protecting our kids from cancer. ADMIN. PRUITT: they want leadership. and this president is providing leadership in so many SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000264-00002 areas. it gets lost in washington, d.c. malaise. DOOCY: provide leadership to do what with the environment. ADMIN. PRUITT: clean up these sites. set a goal and say 1322 sites unaccept somebody. get st. louis cleaned up. DOOCY: how much is it going to cost? ADMIN. PRUITT: the great thing about this is we have funding. people out there responsible for these sites to clean up. moneys are there to do so. it's not a matter of money. it's a matter of leadership and attitude and management. we need to do it much better. KILMEADE: when are you going to make a decision about leaving and staying in paris on the paris agreement. ADMIN. PRUITT: i think when the president gets back from the g 7. i'm actually attending the g 7 early june as well there will be a decision on paris. very important we make decisions there soon. KILMEADE: it will be one of the big top topics. many in the mainstream media turning antitrump bias into a business. ### SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000264-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast[JBast@heartland.org] Konkus,John Tue 6/6/2017 10: 11 :36 PM RE: Can you get Richard Belzer an invitation to the Scientific Integrity meeting? Yes. Makes send to invite Dr. Belzer. Thank you. From: Joseph Bast [mailto:JBast@heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:05 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: Can you get Richard Belzer an invitation to the Scientific Integrity meeting? John, Richard Belzer is a big name in regulatory policy. He writes, Joe, I am a member of the SAB panel on economy-wide modeling. Perhaps OSA would be inclined to invite me based on that affiliation? Maybe other members of the panel also would be interested in attending. There are some areas of overlap between our panel's work and EPA' s scientific integrity policy. Regards, Richard B. Belzer, Ph.D. rbbelzcr@post.harvard.edu http://www.rbbclzer.com 703- 780-1850 V 703-594-4171 f Can you ask OSI to invite him? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000265-00001 Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_ 00000265-00002 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Bee: 'bndunlop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato .org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland .org']; 'meredith.schultz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@aei.org']; 'myron.ebell@cei.org'['myron.ebell@cei.org']; ! i'll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; To: Ex. 6 _ Personal Privacy L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·• From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John Fri 5/12/2017 3:03:25 PM EPA's Weekly Round-Up EPA's Weekly Round-Up May 12, 2017 From meeting with Florida Governor Rick Scott, signing a proposed rule that will let North Dakota regulate CO2 storage and reaffirming his commitment to cleaning-up Superfund sites, it was a successful week at EPA. Below is a recap of all of the good news from an EPA that is protecting the environment and American jobs. National Stories ... The New York Times reports one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's top priorities is to clean up toxic Superfund sites. "Scott Pruitt has directed his regional chiefs to elevate Superfund cleanup efforts to what he describes as their rightful place as the agency's core mission. 'I am making it a priority to ensure contaminated sites get cleaned up. We will be more hands-on to ensure proper oversight and attention to the Superfund program at the highest levels of the agency, and to create consistency across states,' Pruitt said." ...:....:...:..::::......::...::..====::...::...::...===.::::..:.. reports that Pruitt is working with local leaders to clean-up the East Chicago Superfund site. "Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt on Friday joined Democrats and Republicans to reaffirm the agency's commitment to communities outside of Chicago hit by high levels of lead contamination. Pruitt had visited the Indiana city of East Chicago last month affected by contamination from a closed lead production facility owned by the firm U.S. Steel that had been designated a Superfund cleanup site by the agency in 2009." The Washington Times reports Pruitt said that Barack Obama was no 'environmental savior.' "Mr. Pruitt said the past administration talked a good game on SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000266-00001 the environment, but has little in the way of concrete accomplishments. He pointed to the environmental disaster in Flint, Michigan, and the Gold King Mine spill, both of which led to widespread water contamination. He also said the administration's attempts to rein in carbon emissions were blocked by federal courts, as were other high-profile regulations. At the same time, Mr. Pruitt charged, much of the country remained in noncompliance with federal ozone standards, and the number of Superfund sites - areas contaminated by hazardous waste and identified for federal clean-up efforts increased during Mr. Obama's tenure." The Hill reports that Pruitt was highly critical of the previous administration. "Pruitt was also highly critical of his predecessor, naming similar environmental problems over the last eight years. 'What's so great about that record,' he asked North Dakota conservative radio host Rob Port, after listing similar statistics about air quality, Superfund and the Flint and Gold King disasters. 'I don't quite understand the environmental left when they say that somehow, what the past administration, what was done, was so great."' The Daily Caller reports that Pruitt said he sued the previous administration because they exceeded their statutory authority. "Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said he sued the agency he heads so many times while Oklahoma attorney general because 'they exceeded their statutory authority.' 'They deserved it and they deserved it because they exceeded their statutory authority, they exceeded their constitutional authority."' Additionally, the Daily Caller notes that after the Flint water crisis, the previous administration does not deserve the plaudits it has received. "Pruitt said the former administration does not deserve the plaudits it has received, especially after the EPA 's failure to fix Flint's water system." On Hugh Hewitt, Pruitt set the record straight about false information being circulated about the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors. "The board of scientific counselors that we have at the EPA, they serve three year terms. And so those are reviewed every three years. Those same individuals can apply through the competitive process . ... There was no firing that took place. These individuals can apply, will apply, I'm sure, in some instances, and very well could be put back on the board. But it's the right thing to do to ensure transparency, its activity, peer-reviewed science and geographical representation on the board." Need to Know Network reports that Pruitt said that Obama's administration used the authority of Washington to walk over the states. "Pruitt said during the interview that the Obama administration used the authority of Washington to walk over the states, and looked at states as mere vessels of federal will. ... Pruitt went on to say that the EPA has restored a focus on "cooperative federalism" and working with the states." To The States ... The Tampa Bay Times reports that Pruitt met with Florida Governor Rick Scott to SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000266-00002 talk about water issues. "[Governor Rick] Scott popped in for a visit with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to talk water issues." The Bismarck Tribune reports that the EPA signed a proposed rule that will let North Dakota regulate CO2 storage wells. "Tuesday marked a new day for North Dakota's ability to regulate storage of carbon dioxide gas, an important part of a cleaner coal future. The federal Environmental Protection Agency took a first step toward giving the state primary authority to regulate federal Class VI wells for injecting CO2 into deep underground pore space for either long-term storage or for store-and-sell in enhanced oil recovery." The Fargo Forum reports Pruitt promised a friendlier, more cooperative relationship with states. '"If you go back to the inception of the agency ... Congress has been very insistent in saying the states have a role,' EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told me during an interview on my radio show today. 'The past administration simply disregarded that,' he continued." The Grand Forks Herald reports that all of sudden North Dakota and the EPA are getting along. "Under the Trump administration, there has been a big shift in our state's relationship with that federal agency. 'The days of coercive federalism are over,' new EPA head Scott Pruitt said earlier this year in a letter to Governor Doug Burgum." The Minot Daily News reports that North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum said EPA Administrator Pruitt will have the biggest single impact on his state. "Gov. Doug Burgum said he thinks the biggest change for North Dakota as a result of the Trump administration is the president's new team, in particular, two of its members. Burgum said he feels Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, will have the biggest single impact on North Dakota." Ozark News reports that Pruitt slammed the brakes on a pesticide rule from the Obama Administration. "Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has announced a 12-month delay for the implementation of the Certification and Training of Pesticide Applicators rule. Pruitt says the new extension will enable EPA to work with states and provide adequate compliance and training resources, after the group received feedback from states and stakeholders that more time and resources were needed to prepare for compliance with the rule." Oklahoma Ci 's KOCO-TV reports that the EPA awarded Oklahoma with an $855,000 grant to protect water quality. "The Environmental Protection Agency has awarded $855,000 to the Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Energy to support management of non point-source water pollution, officials said in a news release .... 'Improving the Nation's water is one of EPA's highest priorities under the Trump administration,' said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who was Oklahoma's attorney general before taking a position in President Donald Trump's administration." R083 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000266-00003 If you would rather not receive future communications from Environmental Protection Agency, let us know by clicking Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460 United States SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000266-00004 To: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] bndunlop@heritage.org[bndunlop@heritage.org]; pmichaels@cato.org[pmichaels@cato.org]; jlakely@heartland.orgUlakely@heartland.org_L __rn.E:!.~E:!.9.lth..:?_C..~-~!t~@ _ 9 ~J-~C?-~9.ltn.E:!(E:!9.lt.!1_:§_C..Q1:'.!~_@ 9 ~LQ(9L. ___ myron.ebell@cei.org[myron.ebell@cei.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : ll@leonardleo.com[ll@leonardleo.com];j-·-·-·-·' Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy From: Kon kus , John '-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- Bee: 7 Sent: Subject: Thur 5/11/2017 4:45:52 PM Wash Times: Pruitt: Obama no 'environmental savior' Washington Times: EPA chief Pmitt: Obama no 'environmental savior,' past administration accomplished nothing http://www.washingtontimes.com/ncws/2017/may/ I I/cpa-chicf-pruittobama-no-cnvironmental-savior/ John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile{ Ex._6. Personal Privacy_] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389 _ 00000267-00001 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Bee: 'bndunlop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato .org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland .org']; 'meredith.schultz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@aei.org']; 'myron.ebell@cei.org'['myron.ebell@cei.org']; I'll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; To: [ Ex. 6 _ Personal Privacy ' From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John ' Sat 7/15/2017 12:28:27 PM ICYMI: Politico -- Pruitt blasts Europe for 'hypocrisy' on climate Politico: Pruitt blasts Europe, Merkel for 'hypocrisy' on climate By Andrew Restuccia 7/12/17 Link http://www.politico.com/story/2017 /07 /12/pruitt-climate-hypocrisy-merkel-europe-2404 79 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed European critics of President Donald Trump's climate policies as hypocrites on Wednesday, while chastising German Chancellor Angela Merkel for phasing out her country's nuclear power plants. "I just think the hypocrisy runs rampant," Pruitt said in an interview with POLITICO. "To look at us as a nation and say, 'You all need to do more' in light of what we've done in leading with innovation and technology - the hypocrisy is palpable in those areas." Story Continued Below Pruitt mentioned Merkel by name, urging the public to press her on the issue. If reducing carbon dioxide emissions "is so important to you, Madam Chancellor, why are you getting rid of nuclear? Because last time I checked, it's pretty clean on CO2," he said. Merkel is one of the most vocal public defenders of the Paris climate change agreement, the 2015 pact that Trump said last month he intends to leave. Merkel hosted the recent G-20 summit of the world's wealthiest economies, where the United States was the only country not to throw its support behind the deal. At the same time, Germany announced in 2000 it would phase out nuclear power, a shift that Merkel accelerated after the 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan. Pruitt repeated his criticism of the Paris deal, casting doubt on whether the United States would remain part of the climate agreement even if the Trump administration rewrites former President Barack Obama's aggressive plan to cut U.S. emissions. When Trump announced the withdrawal June 1, he held out the possibility of negotiating to "reenter" the accord "on terms that are fair to the United States." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000268-00001 Pruitt argued that the United States has shown it can address climate change without being bound to an international agreement. He noted that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined since President George W. Bush decided in 2001 to abandon the Kyoto Protocol. "What we ought to be focused upon in my view is exporting innovation and technology to nations like China, like India, to help them with respect to their power grid," he said. Pruitt said the United States will continue to engage with the international community on climate change, but he called the Paris deal "pure symbolism," adding, "It was a bumper sticker. "Engagement is unquestioned. We're going to continue to engage," he said. "But we have led with action." Still, Pruitt continued to raise concerns that remaining in the Paris deal could create legal complications as the administration tries to unravel Obama's domestic climate regulations, arguing that outside groups could seek to hold the U.S. to its pledges in court. "Why would you hold yourself out to that type of legal liability?" he said. During the administration's monthslong debate over Paris, Pruitt and other opponents of the agreement made that argument behind the scenes, clashing with other Trump advisers who believed those legal fears were unfounded. Pruitt, along with Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon, was the most forceful advocate of ending U.S. participation in the Paris deal. Pruitt bristled at the phrase "climate denier," a description that his critics have often applied to him in light of his repeated statements disputing scientific conclusions about the large role humans play in warming the planet. "What does it even mean? That's what I think about it. I deny the climate? Really? Wow, OK. That's crazy, in my view," he said. Pruitt reiterated his position that the climate is warming and humans contribute to that, but "the ability to measure with precision the human contribution to warming is something that's very challenging to do." In contrast, the vast majority of the world's climate scientists agree that the planet is warming in large part due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal. Pruitt has come under fire from Democrats - and even some moderate Republicans, including former EPA chiefs - for his stance on climate change. Others have raised red flags about the steep budget cuts facing the agency, worrying that its mission to protect human health and the environment could be compromised. Pruitt has called for a public - possibly televised - SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 debate about climate science. ED_001389_00000268-00002 "The American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion about that, and that's how you ultimately get to consensus," he said. "And I tend to think at times that maybe consensus wasn't the focus historically, over the last several years. It was to use it as a political issue, to put jerseys on - either you're for or against." In the end, he said, his ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is limited by the 1972 Clean Air Act, whose authority he believes Obama overstepped when he imposed greenhouse gas restrictions for the nation's power plants. Pruitt argued that the media's focus on climate change has distracted from the work he is doing at the EPA on everything from air pollution to regulating dangerous chemicals. "We've got a very positive environmental agenda. [There's] work to be done, opportunity to achieve good outcomes, a plan to do that, and there's not very much margin, if any at all, with groups that are liberal, conservative, the rest, at getting those things done," he said. Pruitt has sought to "reorient" the EPA toward what he argues are its core functions, including reducing air pollution, cleaning up toxic waste sites, regulating chemicals and improving water quality. Pruitt said he organized an internal task force that will soon deliver recommendations on how to improve the agency's Superfund program, which is designed to clean up the nation's worst toxic pollution sites. The EPA administrator laid into Obama, arguing he didn't do nearly enough to limit air pollutants and sought to severely restrict the use of fossil fuels. "God has blessed us with natural resources. Let's use them to feed the world. Let's use them to power the world. Let's use them to protect the world," Pruitt said. "But this idea that we as a nation have this abundance of natural resources and the job of this agency and I'm speaking rhetorically here and facetiously - is to say, 'Do not touch.' Where is that in the statute?" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000268-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Morris, Madeline[morris.madeline@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 8/15/2017 7:30:47 PM RE: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt Excellent. Thanks. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Morris, Madeline [mailto:morris.madeline@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 2:22 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: Re: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt Yes! Thank you. We will be in touch. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jim Lakely wrote: Maddy, Just following up to make sure you got my reply and attachments to this request last week. I just returned from vacation. Warm regards, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000896-00001 Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Morris, Madeline I..!..!.!!==========..,,, Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 5:53 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt Hi Jim, I just wanted to send you a quick email and introduce myself. I know you worked prior with Sydney and Michelle in our office, but they have now returned to Oklahoma. I have your original request, but was hoping you would fill out the attached form. This just has everything we need to get the ball rolling on our end. Appreciate the help, and please let me know if you need anything! Best, Maddy Madeline Morris Executive Scheduler 564-0844 I Office of the Administrator I direct: 202- I cell: l.Ex._s_-_Personal_Privacy_I SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000896-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 To: From: Sent: Subject: Morris, Madeline[morris.madeline@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Thur 8/10/2017 10:54:05 PM Automatic reply: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt I will be away from my desk until 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 15. Please direct all inquires to Deputy Communications Director Keely Drukala at kdrukala@heartland.org or Media Specialist Billy Aouste at baouste@heartland.org. Or, you can call 312-377-4000. - Jim Lakely SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000898-00001 Morris, Madeline[morris.madeline@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Sent: Fri 8/11/2017 2:33:58 PM Subject: Re: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt (08-11-17) Potential speakers for Energy Conference.docx External Meeting Request Form - Heartland lnstiute for Nov 9 2017.docx To: From: Maddy, As promised, attached is your form, and also the very early draft schedule of Heartland's America First Energy Conference on November 9 in Houston, Texas. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for being so responsive. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: "Morris, Madeline" Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 5:54 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt Hi Jim, I just wanted to send you a quick email and introduce myself. I know you worked prior with SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000899-00001 Sydney and Michelle in our office, but they have now returned to Oklahoma. I have your original request, but was hoping you would fill out the attached form. This just has everything we need to get the ball rolling on our end. Appreciate the help, and please let me know if you need anything! Best, Maddy Madeline Morris Executive Scheduler 0844 I Office of the Administrator I direct: 202-564- I celli._Ex._s_ -_Personal_Privacy .I SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000899-00002 Draft schedule/speaker table: Last updated by JL (August 11, 2017) America First Energy Conference-Thursday, November 9, 2017 J.W. Marriott Hotel, Houston, Texas Time Meal starts at 7:30 am; speech starts at 8 am; session adiourns at 8:30 am; room reset from 8:30 am - 9:00 am 8:00 am Breakfast Keynote - (First back up is: Jay Lehr - Climate Presentation for President Trump) Time Panel 1A: Speakers Time Ener2y and Prosperity 9:00 am- Moderator: John Nothdurft 10:00 am Panel 1B: State of Speakers Climate Science Kathleen Hartnett White - senior fellow, Texas Public Policy Foundation 9:00a.m. - Moderator: Isaac Orr 10:00 am Tonv Lupo - Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Columbia Nick Loris - energy economist, Heritage Foundation David Legates - professor of climatology, University of Delaware Paul Crovo - energy analyst in private sector Patrick Michaels - senior fellow, Cato Institute OTHER CANDIDATES Jonathan Haubert - founder & managing partner, H.B. Legacy Media Co OTHER CANDIDATES Willie Soon - astrophysicist in Cambridge, Mass. Craig Idso - Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Donald Hertzmark - adjunct professor in Global Electricity Will Happer - Princeton University; Markets, Johns Hopkins University) CO2 Coalition Time Panel2A: Speakers Time David Deming - Professor of Arts 10:00 am- Energy and Agriculture Panel2B: Protecting the Speakers Environment 10:00am- Moderator: Bette Grande SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Moderator: Isaac Orr Jay Lehr - Science Director, The ED_001389_00000900-00001 and Sciences, Mewboume College of Earth and Energy, University of Oklahoma 11:00 am Heartland Institute 11:00 am Todd Mvers - Enviromnental Director, Washington Policy Center Michelle Smith- Vice President, Land; organic based farmer and rancher Steve Gore ham - author, Enviromnental Researcher Amanda Maxham - Research Associate, The Ayn Rand Institute OTHER CANDIDATES James Tavlor - Spark of Freedom OTHER CANDIDATES Art Robinson - Cofounder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Rich Tzrupek - author; Principal Consultant, Trinity Consultants Vincent H. Smith - Professor of Economics, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Montana State University Mischa Popoff- author, "Is it Organic?" Time Panel 3A- The Shale Oil Speakers Time and Gas Revolution 11:00 am12:00pm Moderator: Bette Grande Panel 3B - Social Speakers Cost of Carbon Susan Courter - Owner, Courter Resource Group, LLS Bud Weinstein -Associate Director, Maguire Energy Institute Jessica Sena - Montana Petroleum Association OTHER CANDIDATES Ron Muehlcnkamp- Founder and Portfolio Manager, Muhlenkamp & Company, Inc.) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 11:00 am- Moderator: James 12:00pm Taylor Kevin Davaratna - Senior Statistician and Research Progra1runer, the Heritage Foundation RQss McKitri<.:k- associate professor of economics, University of Guelph. Roger Bczdek - energy analyst; president of MISI OTHER CANDIDATES Robert Michaels - a Professor of Economics, Cal State-Fullerton) ED_001389_00000900-00002 Time Meal starts at 12:30 pm; speech starts at 1 pm; session ad.iourns at 1:30 pm; room reset from 1:30 pm - 2:00 pm l:00p.m. Lunch Keynote: (First Backup is: Patrick Moore - Benefits of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide) Time Panel 4A - The Future Speakers Time Larry Kaufmann - Senior Advisor, Pacific Economic Group 2:00pm- of Coal Panel4BProtecting Human Speakers Health 2:00pm- Moderator: Fred Palmer 3:00pm 3:00pm Moderator: James Taylor Mark Krumenacher - principaland senior vice president of GZA GeoEnviromnental, Inc. John Dunn - policy advisor, The Heartland Institute Jerome Arnett -pulmonologist Jim Enstrom -Research Professor, University of California Los Angeles School of Public Health Michael Hicks -Associate Professor of Economics, Ball State University OTHER CANDIDATES Timothy J. Considine, distinguished professor of energy economics at the School of Energy Resources and the Department of Economics and Finance at OTHER CANDIDATES W. Kip Viscusi - Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University the University of Wyoming Time Panel SA- The Cost of Panel 5B - EPA's Endangerment Speakers Time Benjamin Zycher - Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute 3:00pm- Moderator: Sterling 4:00pm Burnett Excessive Regulation Speakers Findin2 3:00pm- Moderator: John 4:00pm Nothdurft Clvde Wavne Crews -vice president for policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute David T. Stevenson - Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness for the Caesar Rodney Institute; Trump EPA Transition SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Steve Millov -Author, "Scare Pollution"; founder, JunkScience.com Pat Michaels - Director, Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute Thomas Tanton - Director of ED_001389_00000900-00003 Team Science and Technology Assessment, E&E Legal OTHER CANDIDATES Jere C. Fabick- President, Fabick Cat; policy advisor, The Heartland Institute OTHER CANDIDATES Cork Hayden - Professor of Physics Emeritus, University of Connecticut Robert Zubrin - Founder and President, Pioneer Energy W. Kip Viscusi - Professor of Bob Murray - president, Murray Energy Time Panel 6A- National Security and Energy Speakers Law, Vanderbilt University Time Panel6B- Speakers Reforming EPA Policv 4:00pm5:00pm Moderator: Fred Palmer Jack Chambless - Professor of Economics, Valencia College Walter Cunningham -Apollo 7 Astronaut; author Mvron Ebell - Director, Energy and Global Wanning Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Trump EPA Transition Team (leader) Hal Doiron -vice president for engineering oflnDyne, Inc; The Right Climate Stuff David Kreutzer - Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation; Trump EPA Transition Team OTHER CANDIDATES Gerald E. Marsh- Physicist, retired from Argonne National Laboratory Amv Oliver Cooke -Executive Vice President and Director of the Energy and Enviromnental Policy Center for the Independence Institute; Trump EPA Transition Team Capt. Donald K. "Deke" Forbes - author, Climate Change, Energy Policy, and National Power Thomas B. Hayward - author, Climate Change, Energy Policy, and National Power Edward Briggs - author, Climate Change, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 4:00pm5:00pm Moderator: Jay Lehr OTHER CANDIDATES David T. Stevenson - Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness for the Caesar Rodney Institute; Trump EPA Transition Team ED_001389_00000900-00004 Energy Policy, and National Power Austin Lipari, Deputy Director, The Federalist Society; Trump EPA Transition Team Harlan Watson - staffer, House Science, Space and Technology Committee Rich Tzrupck- author; Principal Consultant, Trinity Consultants Time Meal starts at 6:30 pm; speech starts at 7 pm; session adjourns at 8:30 pm (Time can be made for award to Sen. Barrasso) 7:00 p.m. 7:45 p.m. Closing Remarks by Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000900-00005 External Meeting Request Form for Administrator E. Scott Pruitt U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To request the Administrator to attend and/or speak at your event, please complete and submit the following form. Today's Date: August 11, 2017 Meeting Date: Thursday, November 9, 2017 Meeting Time: 8 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. (Speaking slots are 8 a.m., 1 p.m., and 7 p.m.; latter is ideal) Requested Location (if offsite, please list address, parking instructions, etc.): J.W. Marriott Hotel, 5150 Westheimer Rd, Houston, Texas 77056 Requestor: The Heartland Institute (President: Tim Huelskamp; CEO: Joseph Bast; Communications Director and contact: Jim Lakely) Purpose of the Meeting: To offer remarks on Administrator Pruitt's agenda at the Environmental Protection Agency, actions of first term (especially how it relates to EPA giving more power back to the states), and overall relation to President Trump's America First Energy Plan. Background on the Meeting: This meeting will outline President Trump's America First Energy Plan, highlight its strengths, and build public support and legislative momentum for its implementation. The Heartland Institute is internationally known for putting on 12 outstanding International Conferences on Climate Change, which have attracted thousands of scientific and layman skeptics that human activity is causing a global climate crisis. This conference will also have a handful out of 12 panels that discuss the latest climate science from a skeptic perspective. Role of the Administrator: Deliver a keynote address of 30 - 45 minutes. Q&A from audience is at discretion and approval of Administrator Pruitt. Attendees: We expect between 300 and 400 attendees consisting of energy industry leaders, climate scientists, oil and gas energy professionals, economists, staffers and scholars from many state and national conservative think tanks, state legislators, interested members of the public, and media. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000901-00001 Point of Contact: Jim Lakely, director of communications, The Heartland Institute. Cell phone: 312-731-9364; email:======= SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000901-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Morris, Madeline[morris.madeline@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Fri 8/11/2017 3:03:11 AM Re: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt Maddy, Thanks for the follow-up and the update on Michelle and Sydney. Please pass along my regards and hope for their success back in Oklahoma. I will fill out this form and submit it on Friday. I'm currently on vacation with family, but want to make sure to turn this around for you and Administrator Pruitt as quickly as possible. FYI: While my original inquiry to Michelle and Sydney was for Mr. Pruitt to speak at Heartland's 33 rd Anniversary Benefit Dinner "sometime in September or October," we've canceled that event and are instead hosting what Heartland is calling the America First Energy Conference on Thursday, November 9, 2017 in Houston, Texas. The conference's purpose, as the name suggests, is to promote the Trump administration's excellent agenda on that topic - one that abandons the dead-end "green energy" push of the Obama years. Especially because the president wants to make America a global power again in energy production, we selected the hub of our energy sector in Houston as the conference city. We expect an audience of several hundred - as well as a healthy contingent of media and we've reserved one of our three plenary keynotes for Administrator Pruitt (his choice of, roughly, 8 a.m, noon, or 7 p.m.). I'd be happy to share our very rough draft of the schedule with you, as well as the form you've sent, if that helps. The website we've created for our conference is :......:..:......:....:::::..:..:..=..:::::..:.......:.;c..:::..:..:=:....:..=~=· It's officially "live," but will not be announced to the public for about another week. It contains the broadest of outlines of our plans, and gives an indication of how it will be promoted. Thanks, again, for reaching out, and I look forward to future communications. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000902-00001 Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: "Morris, Madeline" Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 5:54 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt Hi Jim, I just wanted to send you a quick email and introduce myself. I know you worked prior with Sydney and Michelle in our office, but they have now returned to Oklahoma. I have your original request, but was hoping you would fill out the attached form. This just has everything we need to get the ball rolling on our end. Appreciate the help, and please let me know if you need anything! Best, Maddy SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000902-00002 Madeline Morris Executive Scheduler 0844 I ce 11:l_Ex. _s- Personal_ Privacy I Office of the Administrator I direct: 202-564- .I SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000902-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: jlakely@heartland .orgUlakely@heartland.org] Morris, Madeline Thur 8/10/2017 10:53:20 PM Speaking Request for Admin. Pruitt Hi Jim, I just wanted to send you a quick email and introduce myself. I know you worked prior with Sydney and Michelle in our office, but they have now returned to Oklahoma. I have your original request, but was hoping you would fill out the attached form. This just has everything we need to get the ball rolling on our end. Appreciate the help, and please let me know if you need anything! Best, Maddy Madeline Morris Executive Scheduler 0844 I cell:! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy I Office of the Administrator I direct: 202-564- i !-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389_00000904-00001 External Meeting Request Form for Administrator E. Scott Pruitt U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To request the Administrator to attend and/or speak at your event, please complete and submit the following form. Today's Date: Meeting Date: Meeting Time: Requested Location (if offsite, please list address, parking instructions, etc.): Requestor: Purpose of the Meeting: Background on the Meeting: Role of the Administrator: Attendees: Point of Contact: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389_00000905-00001 To: From: Sent: Subject: Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Thur 2/22/2018 11 :22:51 AM Re: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Tate, Sorry we didn't get a chance to connect yesterday. I'll be on Capitol Hill for a FDA reform briefing Heartland is hosting until we return to CPAC at 3 p.m. for our Energy Breakout Session at CPAC. I'll have my phone on me if you'd like to chat. Or we can text: 312-731-9364. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: "Bennett, Tate" Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 8:20 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: Re: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Thanks! I'll call you at the end of the day On Feb 20, 2018, at 6:54 PM, Jim Lakely wrote: Sure thing. Here's my cell:l.Ex. 6 .-.Personal_Privacy. i I land in DC at around 3 p.m. tomorrow. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000004-00001 Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Bennett, Tate [mailto:Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:43 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Konkus, John Subject: Re: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Hey Jim! Can l give you a call on this tomorrow? Or vice versa? i Ex. 6 • Personal Privacy ! i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· On Feb 20, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Jim Lakely wrote: I see today that Administrator Pruitt is scheduled to speak at CPAC again this year. That's great! Is there any chance he can also stop by our official CPAC Breakout Session on Energy Policy to be the "keynote" for our second hour on Friday from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.? Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Jim Lakely Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:55 PM SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000004-00002 To: 'Konkus, John' Cc: Bennett, Tate Subject: RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Great. Thanks for the introduction, John. And nice to meet you, Tate. If Administrator Pruitt is available to be the keynote of our CPAC breakout session, we'd be thrilled. Heartland is also very grateful Administrator Pruitt's recorded address for our America First Energy Conference (AFEC) in Houston last November. BTW: We're having our second one of those, AFEC 2018, in New Orleans on August 7. If his schedule allows, he could have any of the breakfast, lunch, or dinner keynote slots he would like. As you know, Heartland and our scholars/supporters/audience are great admirers of what Administrator Pruitt has been able to accomplish in just one year, and look forward to more victories to come. Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:44 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Bennett, Tate Subject: RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000004-00003 Jim: Let me introduce you to Tate Bennett (copied). Tate helps organize most of the Administrator's events. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:12 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City John, Thanks, again, for making sure Heartland's Isaac Orr gets to contribute to the KC event for EPA. I have another request. Heartland is hosting a two-hour breakout session at CPAC on energy policy. We want the second hour to feature a "keynote" speaker. Is there someone at EPA who could talk energy policy for about 30-40 minutes and take some questions from the audience? The purpose of this breakout session, like our energy conference in Houston last November, is to promote President Trump's America First Energy Plan. So it's a great opportunity to communicate directly to the grassroots about its importance and why they should get behind it. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000004-00004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Jim Lakely Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 5:05 PM To: 'Konkus, John' Subject: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City John, I hope you are doing well. Keep up the great work! I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that Heartland Research Fellow for Energy Policy Isaac Orr is going to be at the Kansas City Listening Session on February 21. Can you help us get him on the schedule for offering comments? If that can happen, what's the ideal length of such a comment? Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000004-00005 To: From: Sent: Subject: Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Wed 2/21/2018 3:28:08 AM Re: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Great. Looking forward to it. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: "Bennett, Tate" Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:20 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: Re: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Thanks! I'll call you at the end of the day On Feb 20, 2018, at 6:54 PM, Jim Lakely wrote: Sure thing. Here's my cell:iEx. 6 - Personal Privacy i i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ I land in DC at around 3 p.m. tomorrow. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000005-00001 From: Bennett, Tate [mailto:Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:43 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Konkus, John Subject: Re: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Hey Jim! Can I give you a call on this tomorrow? Or vice versa?[_Ex. 6 - Personal _Privacy i On Feb 20, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Jim Lakely wrote: I see today that Administrator Pruitt is scheduled to speak at CPAC again this year. That's great! Is there any chance he can also stop by our official CPAC Breakout Session on Energy Policy to be the "keynote" for our second hour on Friday from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.? Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Jim Lakely Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:55 PM To: 'Konkus, John' Cc: Bennett, Tate Subject: RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Great. Thanks for the introduction, John. And nice to meet you, Tate. If Administrator Pruitt is available to be the keynote of our CPAC breakout session, we'd be thrilled. Heartland is also very grateful Administrator Pruitt's recorded address for our America First Energy Conference (AFEC) in Houston last November. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000005-00002 BTW: We're having our second one of those, AFEC 2018, in New Orleans on August 7. If his schedule allows, he could have any of the breakfast, lunch, or dinner keynote slots he would like. As you know, Heartland and our scholars/supporters/audience are great admirers of what Administrator Pruitt has been able to accomplish in just one year, and look forward to more victories to come. Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:44 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Bennett, Tate Subject: RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Jim: Let me introduce you to Tate Bennett (copied). Tate helps organize most of the Administrator's events. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:12 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000005-00003 John, Thanks, again, for making sure Heartland's Isaac Orr gets to contribute to the KC event for EPA. I have another request. Heartland is hosting a two-hour breakout session at CPAC on energy policy. We want the second hour to feature a "keynote" speaker. Is there someone at EPA who could talk energy policy for about 30-40 minutes and take some questions from the audience? The purpose of this breakout session, like our energy conference in Houston last November, is to promote President Trump's America First Energy Plan. So it's a great opportunity to communicate directly to the grassroots about its importance and why they should get behind it. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Jim Lakely Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 5:05 PM To: 'Konkus, John' Subject: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000005-00004 John, I hope you are doing well. Keep up the great work! I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that Heartland Research Fellow for Energy Policy Isaac Orr is going to be at the Kansas City Listening Session on February 21. Can you help us get him on the schedule for offering comments? If that can happen, what's the ideal length of such a comment? Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000005-00005 To: Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Bee: lfurman@cochamber.com[lfurman@cochamber.com]; adam.ney@cbia.com[adam.ney@cbia.com]; cjames@dscc.com[cjames@dscc.com]; dhart@flchamber.com[dhart@flchamber.com]; kjackson@gachamber.com[kjackson@gachamber.com]; labe@cochawaii.org[labe@cochawaii.org]; ALaBeau@iaci.org[ALaBeau@iaci.org]; tdiers@ilchamber.org[tdiers@ilchamber.org]; jbrantley@indianachamber.comUbrantley@indianachamber.com]; cmcgowan@siouxlandchamber.com[cmcgowan@siouxlandchamber.com]; president@kansaschamber.org[president@kansaschamber.org]; davida@kychamber.com[davida@kychamber.com]; reneea@labi.org[reneea@labi.org]; pgore@mainechamber.org[pgore@mainechamber.org]; info@mdchamber.org[info@mdchamber.org]; jholcomb@michamber.comUholcomb@michamber.com]; bblazar@mnchamber.com[bblazar@mnchamber.com]; jword@mec.msUword@mec.ms]; mpanik@mochamber.com[mpanik@mochamber.com]; Bridger@MontanaChamber.com[Bridger@MontanaChamber.com]; jkarl@nechamber.comUkarl@nechamber.com]; slamb@BIAofNH.com[slamb@BIAofNH.com]; michael.egenton@njchamber.com[michael.egenton@njchamber.com]; bcondon@nmaci.org[bcondon@nmaci.org]; info@chamber.nyc[info@chamber.nyc]; chughes@ncchamber.net[chughes@ncchamber.net]; brent@ndchamber.com[brent@ndchamber.com]; klake@oh iochamber. com[klake@oh iochamber. com]; mjackson@okstatechamber.com[mjackson@okstatechamber.com]; jlwilson@pacounsel.orgUlwilson@pacounsel.org]; sdenisco@pachamber.org[sdenisco@pachamber.org]; pderoche@provchamber.com[pderoche@provchamber.com]; kate.bondurant@scchamber.net[kate.bondurant@scchamber.net]; davido@sdchamber.biz[davido@sdchamber. biz]; charles.schneider@tnchamber.org[charles.schneider@tnchamber.org]; bgibson@txbiz.org[bgibson@txbiz.org]; rona@thechamber.org[rona@thechamber.org]; aboles@VTChamber.com[ aboles@VTChamber.com]; l.wisman@vachamber.com[l.wisman@vachamber.com]; _sroberts@wvchamber.com[sroberts@wvchamber.com]; mem@wmc.org[mem@wmc.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i 'Jerry Strickland'[Jerry.Strickland@gov.texas.gov]; Patrick 'Hedger[phedger@freedomworks.org]; pmichaels@cato.org[pmichaels@cato.org]; gnorquist@atr.org[gnorquist@atr.org]; sallen@capitalresearch.org[sallen@capitalresearch.org]; SW@Capitalresearch.org[SW@Capitalresearch.org]; pgoettler@cato.org[pgoettler@cato.org]; pmichaels@cato.org[pmichaels@cato.o_rgJ~__ qQ_g~l 9JQ9.9._r:D.9..~iD_i.@_C..~L9.rnI~lD_9~! 9.J9.9.QIQ9.?.J.O.!@.~ei.org]; tschatz@cagw.org[tschatz@cagw.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i craig@cfact.org[craig@cfact.org]; mebeLll@cei.org[mebell@cei.org]; Christopher.Horner@cei.org[Christopher.Horner@cei.org]; skazman@CEl.org[skazman@CEl.org]; M Lew is@ce i.org [M Lew is@ce i.org]; wi 11ia m.ye a!tn_~l)_@_C..~.L-.9.!.91Y'.{_i!ll _______________ ~ 9_Q")_):'.~.§3!Q")_§ID_@~~L°-(91._ ):~~-r:i!.-J.§1?._S..Ql_~fJ.@_c..~L.9.!.91~~-n..U~~-?.DJ§3_n._@.~~Lq.rnLl_ ________________________ ~-~:-.~--~-!'-~-~-:"i?..~.~~--~-~-~".'.~.~y_ ________________________ j :_ ________________________________ Ex. _6_ -.Personal _Privacy_________________________________ i ..rich a rdson@ee lega I_. or_g[rich a rdso n@ee leg a I.o rgI;_·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·, i i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy r~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:Ex.: 6-Persona(Privacy :~:~:~:~:~:~:_TaI5raiido-li@freeaomworKs:orgfaorafia6n@ffeea6"mw6f . sbourne@georg_eallen.comLsbourne@gBorgeallen.com]; . i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i 'THuelskamp@heartland.org[THuelskamp@heartland.org]; julie.gunlock@iwf.orgUulie.gunlock@iwf.org]; tpyle@ierdc.org[tpyle@ierdc.org]; tpyle@energydc.org[tpyle@energydc.org]; i ·-·-·-·-·-Ex._6 - _Personal_Privacy______ jjohnson@nrb.or9Ujohnson@nrb.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! '· tgaz1ano@pac1ficfegalorg[tgaz1ano@pac1ficTegal.org];jw@pacificlegal.orgUw@pacificlegal.org]; tph illi ps@afphq.org[tph i llips@afphq.org]; brian .seasholes@reason.org[brian .seasholes@reason.org]; daren. bakst@heritage.org[ daren. bakst@heritage.org]; michael.costigan@heritage.org[michael.costigan@heritage.org]; robert.gordon@heritage.org[robert.gordon@heritage.org]; diane. katz@heritage.org[ d iane. katz@heritage.org]; SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00000007-00001 david. kreutzer@heritage.org[ david. kreutzer@heritage.org]; nick.loris@heritage.org[nick.loris@heritage.org]; terry.miller@heritage.org[terry.miller@heritage.org]; bndunlop@heritage.org[bndunlop@heritage.org]; jack.spencer@heritage.orgUack.spencer@heritage.org]; ---~§!i~_J~-~-~@b~rJ1~9.~c.9.!.9I~ robe rt. bl uey@h eritage. org [robe rt. bl uey@heritage.org]; 9_ti~J!:1_~1?.@_h..~Ii!. 9g_~_._qr_g]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i LTaiirEfri:Bov.Tmafi@"li"errt~fge~of g"[Laffi'eii".Bow"fii"aff ~heritage. org]; Nichols, Mark[Mark.Nichols@kochps.com]; ncarlton@txoga.org[ncarlton@txoga.org]; amodiano@usoga.org[amodiano@usoga.org]; Mark.Loeffler@TexasAgriculture.gov[Mark.Loeffler@TexasAgriculture.gov]; 'Williams, Mark'[Mark.Williams@mail.house.gov]; Bluey, Rob[rob.bluey@heritage.org]; Gordon, Stephen[gordon.stephen@epa.gov]; Jackson, RyanUackson.ryan@epa.gov]; Letendre, Daisy[letendre.daisy@epa.gov]; Charles DeBow[cdebow@nationalbcc.org]; Bowman, Liz[Bowman.Liz@epa.gov]; Harry Alford[halford@nationalbcc.org]; Kay DeBow[kdebow@nationalbcc.org]; lschaaff@hess.com[lschaaff@hess.com]; Samantha McDonald[SMcDonald@ipaa.org]; Teller, Paul S. EOP/WHOl._Ex._6 _-_ Personal_ Privacy _i From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Thur 3/1/2018 11 :26:23 PM Subject: ICYMI: EPA Takes Action to Address Oil and Gas Compliance Concerns, Saving At Least $14 Million in Regulatory Costs EPA Takes Action to Address Oil and Gas Compliance Concerns, Saving At Least $14 Million in Regulatory Costs 03/01/2018 Contact Information: WASHINGTON - In two actions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking steps to address significant and immediate compliance concerns for the oil and natural gas industry, reduce burdens on our state regulatory partners, and save millions of dollars in regulatory compliance costs. EPA has finalized amendments for certain requirements contained within the 2016 oil and gas New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and proposed to withdraw the control techniques guidelines (CTG) - an action that EPA estimates would save $14 to $16 million in regulatory compliance costs for the oil and gas industry from 2021-2035. "The technical amendments to the 2016 oil and gas NSPS are meant to alleviate targeted regulatory compliance issues faced by affected sources," said EPA Office of Air and Radiation Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum. "While this action addresses an immediate need, it does not deter the ongoing work at the Agency to assess the 2016 rule as a whole, including whether it is prudent or necessary to directly regulate methane." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00000007-00002 "We believe the proposed withdrawal of the CTGs are necessary to provide regulatory certainty to one of the largest sectors of the American economy, and avoid unnecessary compliance costs to both covered entities and the states," said Wehrum. Amendments to the 2016 New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry EPA has amended two narrow provisions of the 2016 NSPS for the oil and natural gas industry to address aspects of the rule that pose significant and immediate compliance concerns. The amendments address two of the "fugitive emissions" requirements in the 2016 rule: a requirement that leaking components be repaired during unplanned or emergency shutdowns; and the monitoring survey requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope. EPA took this final action in response to comments received on the June 2017 proposed stays of certain requirements in the rule and subsequent Notices of Data Availability (NODAs) issued in November 2017. EPA is continuing to evaluate comments the agency received on the proposed stays and NODAs. To read the amendments to the 2016 rule, visit EPA's website at h s://www.c a. 1 ov/controllin -air- ollution-oil-and-natural- as-indus about-oil-and-natural-g~gactions /actions-and-notices- Proposal to withdraw the 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines/or the Oil and Natural Gas Industry In a separate action, EPA is proposing to withdraw the 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry (Oil and Gas CTG) in its entirety. The Oil and Gas CTG provides recommendations for certain states and areas that are required to address smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from covered sources as part of their state implementation plans for meeting EPA's national standards for ground-level ozone. The Oil and Gas CTG relied on data and conclusions that were used in the 2016 NSPS for the oil and gas industry. EPA is currently reconsidering certain aspects of the 2016 NSPS and intends to look broadly at the rule during the reconsideration process. Because some recommendations in the Oil and Gas CTG are based on the 2016 NSPS, and others are based on the NSPS issued in 2012, EPA believes withdrawing the entire Oil and Gas CTG will be more efficient for states, which otherwise might be required to revise their implementation plans twice: once, to address recommendations that are tied to the 2012 NSPS, and potentially a second time after the reconsideration of the 2016 NSPS is complete. EPA has analyzed costs that would be avoided if the Oil and Gas CTG were withdrawn. The Agency analyzed avoided costs assuming that, even if the Oil and Gas CTG were withdrawn, some states might need to obtain VOC emission reductions from existing oil and gas sources as part of their state implementation plans for meeting the ozone standard. Using this perspective, the agency estimates that the oil and gas industry would avoid costs of $1.2 million per year (3 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00000007-00003 percent discount rate) or $1.6 million per year (7 percent discount rate) under this perspective, totaling $14 or $16 million from 2021-2035 (using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent respectively). The agency will take public comment on withdrawing the Oil and Gas CTG for 45 days after a notice is published in the Federal Register. To read the notice of proposed withdrawal, visit EPA's website at h s://www.c a. 1 ov/controllin -air- ollution-oil-and-natural- as-indus about-oil-and-natural-g~g SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 /actions-and-notices- ED_001389A_00000007-00004 To: Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Cc: Gordon, Stephen[gordon.stephen@epa.gov] Bee: tgaziano@pacificlegal.org[tgaziano@pacificlegal.org]; jw@pacificlegal .orgUw@pacificlegal.org]; brian .seasholes@reason.org[brian .seasholes@reason.org]; daren. bakst@heritage.org[ daren. bakst@heritage.org]; michael.costigan@heritage.org[michael.costigan@heritage.org]; robert.gordon@heritage.org[robert.gordon@heritage.org]; diane.katz@heritage.org[diane.katz@heritage.org]; david. kreutzer@heritage.org[ david. kreutzer@heritage.org]; nick.loris@heritage.org[nick.loris@heritage.org]; terry.miller@heritage.org[terry.miller@heritage.org]; bndunlop@heritage.org[bndunlop@heritage.org]; jack.spencer@heritage.orgUack.spencer@heritage.org]; katie. tu bb@heritage.org [katie. tu bb@heritage.org]; robe rt. bl uey@h eritage. org [robe rt. bl uey@heritage.org]; Keith Appell[kappell@CRCPublicRelations.com];Mike Thompson[mthompson@CRCPublicRelations.com]; Myron Ebell[Myron.Ebell@cei.org]; kent.lassman@cei.org[kent.lassman@cei.org]; tphillips@afphq.org[tphillips@afphq.org]; THuelskamp@heartland.org[THuelskamp@heartland.org]; !._________________________ Ex._6 .-.Personal_Privacy·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i tpyle@energydc.org[tpyle@energydc.org]; Lauren.Bowman@heritage.org[Lauren.Bowman@heritage.org]; gnorquist@atr.org[gnorquist@atr.org]; abrandon@freedomworks.org[abrandon@freedomworks.org]; tschatz@cagw.org[tschatz@cagw .org]; annie.dwyer@cei.org[annie.dwyer@cei.org] From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Tue 12/5/2017 9:31 :16 PM Subject: In Case You Missed It: EPA Determines Risks from Hardrock Mining Industry Minimal and No Need for Additional Federal Requirements ICYMI, this announcement was made by EPA last Friday. Let us know if you have any questions and please flag with us any statements/press your organizations may have subsequently put out. -Tate with Administrator Pruitt's Office EPA Determines Risks from Hardrock Mining Industry Minimal and No Need for Additional Federal Requirements 12/01/2017 Contact Information: WASHINGTON -Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the Agency will not issue final regulations for financial responsibility requirements for certain hardrock mining facilities. "After careful analysis of public comments, the statutory authority, and the record for this SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000008-00001 rulemaking, EPA is confident that modern industry practices, along with existing state and federal requirements address risks from operating hardrock mining facilities," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. "Additional financial assurance requirements are unnecessary and would impose an undue burden on this important sector of the American economy and rural America, where most of these mining jobs are based." EPA published proposed regulations under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) on January 11, 2017, and the public comment period closed on July 11, 2017. EPA has decided not to issue final regulations because the risks associated with these facilities' operations are addressed by existing federal and state programs and industry practices. EPA was under a court-ordered deadline to take final action on this rulemaking by December 1, 2017. The decision not to issue final rules under CERCLA section 108(b) will be published in the Federal Register. EPA has analyzed the need for financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA section 108(b) based on the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances from current hardrock mining operations, as well the risk of taxpayer funded cleanups at facilities operating under modern management practices and modern environmental regulations. That risk is identified by examining: the management of hazardous substances at such facilities; federal and state regulatory controls on that management and federal and state financial responsibility requirements; and, the payment experience of the Fund in responding to releases. EPA concluded the degree and duration of risk associated with the modern production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances by the hardrock mining industry does not present a level of risk of taxpayer funded response actions that warrant imposition of financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA for this sector. This determination reflects EPA' s interpretation of the statute, EPA' s evaluation of the record for the proposed rule, and the approximately 11,000 public comments received by EPA on this rulemaking. State mining and environmental regulators, as well as other federal agencies and the regulated community and financial sectors, commented that the proposed requirements would potentially interfere with state and local mining regulations, were unnecessary, and would be difficult to implement. This decision does not in any way affect EPA' s authority to take appropriate response actions under CERCLA. "I urged then President-elect Trump to stop the EPA's overreach into state regulation harming Montana businesses," said U.S. Senate Western Caucus Chairman Steve Daines (R-MT). "Instead of threatening the very industries that are a backbone of our Western economies, we need to support American families and American businesses to secure our mineral and energy independence. I am pleased the EPA has taken action." "I am grateful for Administrator Pruitt's leadership in eliminating this costly, duplicative, and job-killing rule," said Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. "Arizona already has financial responsibility protections in place for hardrock mines and does not need a duplicative federal SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000008-00002 program that will unnecessarily burden a key Arizona industry." "I am thankful that the EPA and Administrator Pruitt have decided to reject the proposed CERCLA rule," said Idaho Governor Butch Otter. "This is another victory for returning power to the states." "The pending CERCLA 108(b) rulemaking has been at the top of my agenda," said Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval. "The success of Nevada's robust mine bonding program protects public safety and our environment and ensures our critical mining industry can operate with certainty. I applaud the EPA for their thoughtful approach and thorough review of the proposed rule, for seeking comments from a diverse set of stakeholders and ultimately, for making the right decision. Today's action by the Administrator recognizes the reality that the states have been capably regulating mine bonding without interference from Washington and should be allowed to continue to do so." "States have developed comprehensive financial responsibility programs for hardrock mining in the 30 years since the passage of CERCLA 108(b)(l)," said Jim Ogsbury, executive director of the bipartisan Western Governors' Association. "These programs require operators to comply with state regulations, implement reclamation and post-closure plans, and post financial assurance to minimize risks to public health and the environment. Wes tern Governors appreciate EPA's decision regarding its proposed financial assurance requirements under CERCLA 108(b), which would have duplicated or supplanted existing and proven state financial assurance regulations." "EPA's actions to rescind the CERCLA I 08(b) financial assurance rule is another positive step by EPA in eliminating redundant regulations and recognizing the importance of cooperative federalism," said Todd Parfitt, director of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. A pre-publication version of this action may be viewed at: h crfund/ ro oscd-rule-financial-rcs onsibilit -re uircmcnts-undcr-ccrcla- Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem. Elizabeth Tate Bennett Associate Administrator for Public Engagement & Environmental Education Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000008-00003 (202) 564-1460 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000008-00004 To: Ben nett, Tate[Ben nett. T at~@.~p_~_._qqyl__ ________________________________ , Bee: Teller, Paul S. EOP/WHOi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ( gnorquist@atr.org[gnorquist@atr.org]; sa Ilen@ca pita !research. org [sa Ilen@ca p 1taTresearch.org1;·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·' SW@Capitalresearch.org[SW@Capitalresearch.org]; pgoettler@cato.org[pgoettler@cato.org]; pmichaels@cato.org[pmichaels@cato.~rg]_; __ _n._g_~! J9_g(?.Q")_§?J.Ol@~~-i.:~Jl_@Q~L9..rn.lr:DY!9_1}_._e.J?.~!1_@9~L9_rg.L_~~.O!- i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : ' Lauren.Bowman@heritage.org[Lauren.Bowman@heritage.org]; Clint Woods[cwoods@csg.org]; tpyle@energydc.org[tpyle@energydc.org]; abrandon@freedomworks.org[abrandon@freedomworks.org]; tschatz@cagw.org[tschatz@cagw .org]; erica_suares@mcconnell.senate.gov[erica_suares@mcconnell.senate.gov]; Van Doren, Terry (McConnell)[Terry_ VanDoren@mcconnell.senate.gov]; Teller, Paul S. EOP/WHOL_ _Ex._6-. Personal Privacy __ ___!Don Parrish[donp@fb.org]; Collier, Laura[collier.laura@epa.govJ; feonard.leo@fed-soc.org[leonard.leo@fed-soc.org]; Neal Carlton (ncarlton@txoga.org)[ncarlton@txoga.org]; luke_holland@iinhofe.senate.gov[luke_holland@iinhofe.senate.gov]; 'Roman, Mark'[Mark.Roman@mail.house.gov]; Joey Songy[Joey.Songy@governor.ms.gov]; Judd DeereUudd.deere@arkansasag.gov]; Clint Woods[cwoods@csg.org]; Kevin Hensley[khensley@tfbf.com]; Lauren.Bowman@heritage.org[Lauren. Bowman@heritage.org]; Lopez, Danny (DaLopez@gov. IN .gov)[DaLopez@gov. IN .gov] From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Tue 10/31/2017 8:00:13 PM Subject: Administrator Pruitt Issues Directive to Ensure Independence, Geographic Diversity & Integrity in EPA Science Committees News Releases from Headquarters> Office of the Administrator (AO) Administrator Pruitt Issues Directive to Ensure Independence, Geographic Diversity & Integrity in EPA Science Committees 10/31/2017 Contact Information: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00000011-00001 WASHINGTON (October 31, 2017)- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Prnitt issued a new directive today to ensure that any advisors serving on an EPA Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) are independent and free from any real, apparent, or potential interference with their ability to objectively serve as a committee member. "Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn't be political science," said Administrator Pruitt. "From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the Agency." The directive explains that: members shall be independent from EPA, which shall include a requirement that no member of any of EPA' s federal advisory committees be currently in receipt of EPA grants, either as principal investigator or co-investigator, or in a position that otherwise would reap substantial direct benefit from an EPA grant. This principle would not apply to state, tribal or local government agency recipients of EPA grants. An accompanying memorandum issued by EPA Administrator Prnitt explains the directives to improve the independence and integrity ofEPA's FACs in ways that advance the Agency's mission. According to EPA calculations, in just the last three years, members of three ofEPA's 22 FACs - the Science Advisory Board (SAB), Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) - received upwards of $77 million in direct EPA grant funding while concurrently serving on these committees. Today, Administrator Prnitt also announced his plan to appoint new leadership and new members to SAB, CASAC and BOSC. In the spirit of cooperative federalism, Administrator Prnitt intends to appoint members that will significantly increase geographic diversity and state, tribal, and local government participation on the committees. A list of members will be posted in coming days. The directive focuses on the importance of the following areas pertaining to EPA FA Cs: 1. Strengthen Member Independence: Members shall be independent from EPA, which shall include a requirement that no member of an EPA federal advisory committee be currently in receipt of EPA grants, either as principal investigator or co-investigator, or in a position that otherwise would reap substantial direct benefit from an EPA grant. This principle shall not apply to state, tribal or local government agency recipients of EPA grants. 2. Increase State, Tribal and Local Government Participation: In the spirit of cooperative federalism and recognition of the unique experience of state, tribal and local government officials, committee balance should reflect prominent participation from state, tribal and local governments. Such participation should be appropriate for the committee's purpose and function. 3. Enhance Geographic Diversity: Given the range of environmental and public health SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00000011-00002 considerations across the country, membership should be balanced with individuals from different states and EPA regions. Emphasis should be given to individuals from historically unrepresented or underrepresented states and regions. 4. Promote Fresh Perspectives: To encourage and promote the inclusion of new candidates with fresh perspectives and to avoid prolonged and continuous service, membership should be rotated regularly. "Strengthening independence from EPA, increasing state, tribal and local government participation, and adding geographic diversity and fresh perspectives will improve the integrity of EPA' s scientific advisory committees," said EPA Administrator Pruitt. To read the full directive please visit To read the full memo please visit \ Elizabeth Tate Bennett Associate Administrator for Public Engagement & Environmental Education Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-1460 Bennett. Tate@epa.gov SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00000011-00003 To: Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Cc: _Gordon,_Stephen[gordon_.stephen@ep_a.gov]; Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Bee: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Mike Thompson[mthompson@CRCPublicRelations.com]; Keith Appell[kappell@CRCPublicRelations.com]; leonard.leo@fed-soc.org[leonard.leo@fed-soc.org]; tphillips@afphq.org[tphillips@afphq.org]; THuelskamp@heartland.org[THuelskamp@heartland.org]; 'Roman, Mark'[Mark.Roman@mail.house.gov]; annie.dwyer@cei.org[annie.dwyer@cei.org]; myron.ebell@cei.org[myron.ebell@cei.org]; kent.lassman@cei.org[kent.lassman@cei.org]; ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i '·caiJ°reif.H6wmari@liEii'ila!:fEf.-6rg[Ca"tirerf:B6wma"f1@heritage.org]; Clint Woods[ cwoods@csg.org]; tpyle@energydc.org[tpyle@energydc.org]; abrandon@freedomworks.org[abrandon@freedomworks.org]; tschatz@cagw.org[tschatz@cagw .org]; erica_suares@mcconnell.senate.gov[erica_suares@mcconnell.senate.gov]; Van Doren, Terry (McConnell)[Terry_ VanDoren@mcconnell.senate.gov]; Teller, Paul S. EOP/WHOL.__Ex._6_-_Personal_ Privacy____ ] Don Parrish[donp@fb.org] From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Thur 10/26/2017 3:00:05 PM Subject: Please join us at EPA on Tuesday, 10-31, 2 PM PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD EXTERNALLY You are invited to join Administrator Pruitt for an announcement next Tuesday. October 31, 2017 2 PM; Please arrive no later than 1 :50 PM Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460 SOUTH Building Entrance RSVP to Gordon.Ste, hen@epa.2ov For more details on the event please e-mail myself or Gordon.Ste, hen@epa.2ov directly and provide a good phone number. This invitation is not transferable externally, but you may bring a guest or two from within your organization so long as they RSVP. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_OOOOOO 12-00001 Tate Elizabeth Tate Bennett Associate Administrator for Public Engagement & Environmental Education Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-1460 Bennett. Tate@epa.gov SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED _001389A_OOOOOO 12-00002 Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Bee: Gordon, Stephen[gordon.stephen@epa.gov]; Dewey, Amy[Dewey.Amy@epa.gov]; 'Tyler White'[twhite@kentuckycoal.com]; 'Rashid G. Hallaway'[rhallaway@hhqventures.com]; 'Nolan, Rich'[RNolan@nma.org]; 'mrussell@crcpublicrelations.com'['mrussell@crcpublicrelations.com']; 'tbeis@eei.org'['tbeis@eei.org']; 'jsmith@eei.org'['jsmith@eei.org']; 'sforrester@uscha mber .com'['sforrester@uschamber.com']; 'Blake.Barfield@hollyfrontier.com'['Blake.Barfield@hollyfrontier.com']; 'ross@utahhba.com'['ross@utahhba.com']; 'bruce@indianacoal.com'['bruce@indianacoal.com']; 'bschonacher@ibc.com'['bschonacher@ibc.com']; 'kcondon@iowarec.org'['kcondon@iowarec.org']; 'csoderberg@iowarec.org'['csoderberg@iowarec.org']; 'claire@mec.com'['claire@mec.com']; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ; 'mmittelholzer@nahb.org'['mmittelholzer@nahb.org']; ',·cglerf@nifrii~"ortffcgleii@ni:im~orgT'caawson@rea Itors. org '['cdawson@rea Itors. org ']; Rhines, Steven[sprhines@noble.org]; 'matt@orangelinecondo.com'['matt@orangelinecondo.com']; 'hjreed@p66.com'['hjreed@p66.com']; 'ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com'['ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com']; 'crellis@noble.org'['crellis@noble.org']; 'Rolfe McCollister'[rmccoll@businessreport.com]; Rollins, Blake - OSEC, Washington, DC[Blake.Rollins@osec.usda.gov]; 'blake. brickman@ky.gov'['bla ke .brickman@ky.gov']; 'demerson@crystalsugar.com'['demerson@crystalsugar.com']; 'pmiller@betterseed.org'['pmiller@betterseed .org']; 'alavigne@betterseed.org'['alavigne@betterseed .org']; __ 'stan_ley_.hill@a_rfb.com'['stanley.hill@arfb.com'];·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i ' 'DickWhite@DurangoGov.org'['DickWhite@DurangoGov.org']; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i .'.~g_9.DJ@_9..Q_l.9..~gl~.9..9..~I§ ...9..CQT.9..~.1Jl@9.9JQ9_g_l5?..~_9.~J§_ ..9nl'.L'.9_$..tf.9j~_9.b,@i lfb.org '['dstroisch@i lfb.org ']; To: !J_1[g9_~r>~}Jf~(@.!.cJ.~l'0'i:~:.;r&Q~~i_~:;1;~~!i-~~s-.-corii'L-rL·-·-·-·jEx:-f·~--F,-e-rsonarPriva-cy-·-·-·-·1 i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i 'anielsen@ilftU5rg'['aiifelseii@ilto~orgT __________ , ''rwhitehouse@ilfb.org'['rwhitehouse@ilfb.org']; ' 'MCLARK@idem. IN .gov'['MCLARK@idem. IN .gov']; 'Kayla.Lyon@iowa.gov'['Kayla.Lyon@iowa.gov']; ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy L---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-•----.,~-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- ljmcken ney@n dfu .org'['jmckenney@ndfu.org']; 'kafletcher@nd.gov'['kafletcher@nd .gov']; Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i ''leeanna.mcnally@okfb.org'['leeanna.mcnally@okfb.org']; _ 'Tyler. Powell@ee.ok.gov'J'Tyler. Powell@ee.o_k.gov'I;________________________________ i i 1 I Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! 1-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ! 'mseetin@usapple.org'['mseetin@usapple.org']; 'kent.lassman@cei.org'['kent.lassman@cei.org']; 'tphillips@afphq.org'['tphillips@afphq.org']; _TH ue lska mp@heartland .orqTTH uelskamp@heartland.org']; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i ''Lauren.Bowman@heritage.org'['Lauren.Bowman@heritage.org']; 'tpyle@energydc.org'['tpyle@energydc.org']; 'gnorquist@atr.org'['gnorquist@atr.org']; 'abrandon@freedomworks.org'['abrandon@freedomworks.org']; 'tschatz@cagw.org'['tschatz@cagw .org']; 'annie.dwyer@cei.org'['annie.dwyer@cei.org']; Gordon, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000013-00001 ,_S1e..P..he.nJgQ.r.d.Q.o.s.te.D.h_e..o@_e..P-.a •.QQ.'llLBr.e.noan,._TbQ.mas.lBr.e.noao,.Thomas@epa.gov]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! •r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·Ex~·s-:-pei-sonai·P-rivacy-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-noe~"caTi'i@Ryfb.co m' ['joe .ca in@kyfb.co m ']; Lopez, Danny[DaLopez@gov.lN.gov]; 'Brian Sanderson'[bsanderson@rgppc.org]; 'Hoelscher, Douglas L. EOP/WHO'L ____________ Ex._6 -_Personal_Privacy _______________ i 'Kirkley. thomas@aeci.com'['Kirkley. thomas@aeci.com']; 'Barry Hart'[bhart@amec.org]; 'Ryan Hart'[RHart@seminole-electric.com]; 'Steve Hensley'[shensley@cotton.org]; 'dstroisch@ilfb.org'['dstroisch@ilfb.org']; 'Kevin Kuhle'[kkuhle@ifbf.org]; 'Kevin Hensley'[khensley@tfbf.com ]; 'Roman, Mark'[Mark. Roman@mail .house .gov]; 'Justin_Memmott@epw.senate.gov'['Justin_Memmott@epw.senate.gov']; 'ryan. benefield@arkansas.gov'['ryan. benefield@arkansas.gov']; 'Adam Piper'[apiper@ruleoflawdefensefund.org]; 'adam@arbeef.org'['adam@arbeef.org']; 'marvin@thepoultryfederation.com'['marvin@thepoultryfederation.com']; 'Paul Singer'[psinger@elliottmgmt.com]; 'bruce.holland@arkansas.gov'['bruce.holland@arkansas.gov']; 'Horne, John (EEC)'[John.Horne@ky.gov]; ,'.r.i~KY_c!fJ.f.lJ.~!~f.@!.D9_i_l,b_qy_?.~_-_g.9-yT_ri~.~-''{9_!J_r:D~-t~_r@ma i I.ho use. gov']; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i 'Ros1y~A"sn"cr'aff@arrp:c-omlR0s1fA"sncratr@a"i'lp:'com]; 'justin.sok@mail.house.gov'['justin.sok@mail.house.gov']; 'Chris_ Tomassi@appro.senate.gov'['Chris_ Tomassi@appro.senate.gov']; 'Diaz, Christine'[Christine. Diaz@eog. myflorida. com]; 'christine.heggem@mail.house.gov'['christine.heggem@mail.house.gov']; 'Cassie Bladow'[Cassie.Bladow@beetsugar.org]; 'Conner, Katelyn (McConnell)'[Katelyn_Conner@mcconnell.senate.gov]; 'Penn, Stephanie (McConnell)'[Stephanie_Penn@mcconnell.senate.gov]; 'Stephanie.Groen@iowa.gov'['Stephanie.Groen@iowa.gov']; 'McDonough, Owen'[OMcDonough@nahb.org]; Don Parrish[donp@fb.org]; 'Leah Pilconis'[pilconisl@agc.org]; Viator, Brad[BViator@eei.org] From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Mon 10/16/2017 3:42:47 PM Subject: ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT ISSUES DIRECTIVE TO END EPA "SUE & SETTLE" Administrator Pruitt Issues Directive to End EPA "Sue & Settle" "The days of regulation through litigation are over," - EPAAdministrator Scott Pruitt WASHINGTON (October 16, 2017) - In fulfilling his promise to end the practice of regulation through litigation that has harmed the American public, EPAAdministrator Scott Pruitt issued an Agency-wide directive today designed to end "sue and settle" practices within the Agency, providing an unprecedented level of public participation and transparency in EPAconsent decrees and settlement agreements. "The days of regulation through litigation are over," said EPAAdministrator Scott Pruitt. "We SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000013-00002 will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle." Over the years, outside the regulatory process, special interest groups have used lawsuits that seek to force federal agencies - especially EPA - to issue regulations that advance their interests and priorities, on their specified timeframe. EPAgets sued by an outside party that is asking the court to compel the Agency to take certain steps, either through change in a statutory duty or enforcing timelines set by the law, and then EPAwill acquiesce through a consent decree or settlement agreement, affecting the Agency's obligations under the statute. More specifically, EPAeither commits to taking an action that is not a mandatory requirement under its governing statutes or agrees to a specific, unreasonable timeline to act. Oftentimes, these agreements are reached with little to no public input or transparency. That is regulation through litigation, and it is inconsistent with the authority that Congress has granted and the responsibility to operate in an open and fair manner. "Sue and settle" cases establish Agency obligations without participation by states and/or the regulated community; foreclose meaningful public participation in rulemaking; effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes; and, cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars. With today's directive, Administrator Pruitt is ensuring the Agency increase transparency, improve public engagement, and provide accountability to the American public when considering a settlement agreement or consent decree by: 1. 2. Publishing any notices of intent to sue the Agency within 15 days of receiving the notice; Publishing any complaints or petitions for review in regard to an environmental law, regulation, or rule in which the Agency is a defendant or respondent in federal court within 15 days of receipt; 3. Reaching out to and including any states and/or regulated entities affected by potential settlements or consent decrees; 4. Publishing a list of consent decrees and settlement agreements that govern Agency SELC v EPA. No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000013-00003 actions within 30 days, along with any attorney fees paid, and update it within 15 days of any new consent decree or settlement agreement; 5. Expressly forbidding the practice of entering into any consent decrees that exceed the authority of the courts; 6. Excluding attorney's fees and litigation costs when settling with those suing the Agency; 7. Providing sufficient time to issue or modify proposed and final rules, take and consider public comment; and 8. Publishing any proposed or modified consent decrees and settlements for 30-day public comment, and providing a public hearing on a proposed consent decree or settlement when requested. The full directive and memo can be read here. The video of the signing can be found!}~!.~• A downloadable b-roll version can be found here. EPAAdministrator Scott Pruitt signs an Agency-wide directive to end "sue and settle" practices within the Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscnbe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000013-00004 To: Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Gordon, Stephen[gordon.stephen@epa.gov]; Dewey, Amy[Dewey.Amy@epa.gov]; Tyler White[twhite@kentuckycoal.com]; Rashid G. Hallaway[rhallaway@hhqventures.com]; Nolan, Rich[RNolan@nma.org]; mrussell@crcpublicrelations.com[mrussell@crcpublicrelations.com]; tbeis@eei.org[tbeis@eei.org]; jsmith@eei.orgUsmith@eei.org]; sforrester@uscha mber .com[ sforrester@uschamber.com ]; Blake.Barfield@hollyfrontier.com[Blake.Barfield@hollyfrontier.com]; ross@utahhba.com[ross@utahhba.com]; bruce@indianacoal.com[bruce@indianacoal.com]; bschonacher@ibc.com[bschonacher@ibc.com]; kcondon@iowarec.org[kcondon@iowarec.org]; _9.?.9.9..~Il?.~r.g@.i9_vy rec. org]; cla i re@mec.com[ cla ire@mec.com]; 9_r~_q_,9..r_g_lc_s._gg~_rp_~rn.@lowa i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy I mmittelholzer@nahb.org[mmittelholzer@nahb.org]; Lcglen@nam.org[cglen@nam.org]; cdawson@realtors.org[cdawson@realtors.org]; Rhines, Steven [sprh ines@noble.org]; matt@orangelinecondo.com[ matt@orangelinecondo.com]; l_______________ ~.?<--.-~ ..:__ ~«:-~~?~~~--~~iy~_c_v._ ____________ ___] ngarcia@s ig n a lg rou pdc. com[ ng arci a@s ig na lg rou pdc. com]; crellis@noble.org[crellis@noble.org]; Rolfe McCollister[rmccoll@businessreport.com]; Rollins, Blake - OSEC, Washington, DC[Blake.Rollins@osec.usda.gov]; blake.brickman@ky.gov[blake.brickman@ky.gov]; demerson@crystalsugar.com[demerson@crystalsugar.com]; pmiller@betterseed.org [pmiller@betterseed.org]; alavigne@betterseed.org[alavigne@betterseed.org]; stanley.hill@arfb.com[stanley.hill@arfb.com]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i ___ DickWhite@DurangoGov.org[DickWh_ite@DurangoGov.org]; __ , i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! L___ g.9..1J_l@9.9199g_l~_c!9.~f.?.,EiY_.'.. ___________________________ Joe. ca in@kytb. comUoe. ca in@kyfb.com]; Lopez, Danny (Dalopez@gov. IN .gov)[Dalopez@gov. IN .gov]; 'Brian Sanderson'[bsanderson@rgppc.org]; 'Hoelscher, Douglas L. L I · 0 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000014-00001 EOP/WHO'i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Kirkley.tho~as@aeci.com[Kirkley.thomas@aecLco'm]; Barry Hart[bhart@amec.org]; Ryan Hart[RHart@seminole-electric.com]; Steve Hensley[shensley@cotton.org]; dstroisch@ilfb.org[dstroisch@ilfb.org]; Kevin Kuhle[kkuhle@ifbf.org]; Kevin Hensley[khensley@tfbf.com]; Roman, Mark[Mark.Roman@mail.house.gov]; 'J usti n_Memmott@epw .senate .gov'[J ustin_Memmott@e pw .senate. gov]; ryan.benefield@arkansas.gov[ryan.benefield@arkansas.gov]; Adam Piper[apiper@ruleoflawdefensefund.org]; adam@arbeef.org[adam@arbeef.org]; marvin@thepoultryfederation.com[marvin@thepoultryfederation.com]; Paul Singer[psinger@elliottmgmt.com]; bruce.holland@arkansas.gov[bruce.holland@arkansas.gov]; Horne, John (EEC)[John.Horne@ky.gov]; __ rick._vanmeter@mai I.house .gov[!"ick.van meter@ma ii.house .gov]; l_____________________ Ex ..6 .-.Personal. Privacy -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j Rusty.Ashcraft@arlp.com[Rusty.Ashcraft@arlp.com]; justin.sok@mail.house.govUustin.sok@mail.house.gov]; 'Chris_ Tomassi@appro.senate.gov'[Chris_ Tomassi@appro.senate.gov]; Diaz, Christine[Christine.Diaz@eog.myflorida.com]; christine.heggem@mail.house.gov[christine.heggem@mail.house.gov]; Cassie Bladow[Cassie.Bladow@beetsugar.org]; 'Conner, Katelyn (McConnell)'[Katelyn_Conner@mcconnell.senate.gov]; Penn, Stephanie (McConnell)[Stephanie_Penn@mcconnell.senate.gov]; Stephanie. Groen@iowa.gov[Stephanie. Groen@iowa.gov]; McDonough, Owen[OMcDonough@nahb.org]; Don Parrish[donp@fb.org]; Leah Pilconis[pilconisl@agc.org]; Viator, Brad[BViator@eei.org] From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Mon 10/16/2017 2:34:22 PM Subject: EMBARGOED UNTIL TODAY@ 11:30 AM: ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT ISSUES DIRECTIVE TO END EPA "SUE & SETTLE" Good Morning! Please see below an embargoed announcement (until 11:30 AM) for today regarding a signed directive from Administrator Pruitt to the agency to end the previous Administration's practice of so-called "Sue & Settle." Let me know if you have any questions and please flag any statements your office may release on this matter. -Tate Elizabeth Tate Bennett Associate Administrator for Public Engagement & Environmental Education Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-1460 Bennett. Tate@epa.gov ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT ISSUESDIRECTIVETO END EPA "SUE & SETTLE" "The days of regulation WASHINGTON - In fulfilling litigation through litigation are over," - EPA Administrator his promise to end the practice of regulation that has harmed the American public, EPA Administrator SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Scott Pruitt through Scott Pruitt issued an ED_ 001389A_ 00000014-00002 Agency-wide directive today designed to end "sue and settle" practices within the Agency, providing an unprecedented level of public participation decrees and settlement agreements. and transparency in EPA consent "The days of regulation through litigation are over," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. "We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle." Over the years, outside the regulatory process, special interest groups have used lawsuits that seek to force federal agencies - especially EPA - to issue regulations that advance their interests and priorities, on their specified timeframe. EPA gets sued by an outside party that is asking the court to compel the Agency to take certain steps, either through change in a statutory duty or enforcing timelines set by the law, and then EPA will acquiesce through a consent decree or settlement agreement, affecting the Agency's obligations under the statute. More specifically, EPA either commits to taking an action that is not a mandatory requirement under its governing statutes or agrees to a specific, unreasonable timeline to act. Oftentimes, these agreements are reached with little to no public input or transparency. That is regulation through litigation, and it is inconsistent with the authority that Congress has granted and the responsibility to operate in an open and fair manner. "Sue and settle" cases establish Agency obligations without participation by states and/or the regulated community; foreclose meaningful public participation in rulemaking; effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes; and, cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars. With today's directive, Administrator Pruitt is ensuring the Agency increase transparency, improve public engagement, and provide accountability to the American public when considering a settlement agreement or consent decree by: 1. Publishing any notices of intent to sue the Agency within 15 days of receiving the notice; 2. Publishing any complaints or petitions for review in regard to an environmental law, regulation, or rule in which the Agency is a defendant or respondent in federal court within 15 days of receipt; 3. Reaching out to and including any states and/or regulated entities affected by potential settlements or consent decrees; 4. Publishing a list of consent decrees and settlement agreements that govern Agency actions within 30 days, along with any attorney fees paid, and update it within 15 days of any new consent decree or settlement agreement; 5. Expressly forbidding the practice of entering into any consent decrees that exceed the authority of the courts; 6. Excluding attorney's fees and litigation costs when settling with those suing the Agency; SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000014-00003 7. Providing sufficient time to issue or modify proposed and final rules, take and consider public comment; and 8. Publishing any proposed or modified consent decrees and settlements for 30-day public comment, and providing a public hearing on a proposed consent decree or settlement when requested. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000014-00004 Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Gordon, Stephen[gordon.stephen@epa.gov]; Letendre, Daisy[letendre.daisy@epa.gov] Bee: Brian Kelly[bkelly@bkstrategies.com]; lundy.kiger@aes.com[lundy.kiger@aes.com]; sgiustino@cancentral.com[sgiustino@cancentral.com]; rbudway@cancentra I.com[ rbudway@cancentral.com]; abromberg@crcpublicrelations.com[abromberg@crcpublicrelations.com]; mrussell@crcpublicrelations.com[mrussell@crcpublicrelations.com]; Blake. Barfield@hollyfrontier.com[Blake. Barfield@hol lyfrontier. com]; ross@utahhba.com[ross@utahhba.com]; bruce@indianacoal.com[bruce@indianacoal.com]; bschonacher@ibc.com[bschonacher@ibc.com]; claire@mec.com[claire@mec.com]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy [ mmittelholzer@nahb.org[mmittelholzer@nahb.org]; LcgTefi@liam~6"rg"[cgTefi@liam~6"rgrtaawson@reaItors. org [cdawson@rea Itors. org]; sprhines@noble.or.9.Ls_Rrhines@noble.org]; matt@orangelinecondo.com[matt@orangelinecondo.com]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ] ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com[ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com]; 'crelf1s@noble.org{cref11s@noofe.orgl; csoderberg@iowarec.org[csoderberg@iowarec.org]; kcondon@iowarec.org[kcondon@iowarec.org]; Terry_ Van Doren@mcconnell .senate .gov[Terry _ Van Doren@mcconnel I.senate .gov]; Katelyn Conner[Katelyn_Conner@mcconnell.senate.gov]; gnorquist@atr.org[gnorquist@atr.org]; sallen@capitalresearch.org[sallen@capitalresearch.org]; SW@Capitalresearch.org[SW@Capitalresearch.org]; pgoettler@cato.org[pgoettler@cato.org]; pmichaels@cato.org[pmichaels@cato.org];_ angela._logomasini@cei.org[angela_.logomasini@cei.org]; tschatz@cagw.org[tschatz@cagw.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i era ig@cfact.org [era ig@cfact.org]; me be'IT@cer"org{meb-ell@ceTofgy·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-' Christopher.Horner@cei.org[Christopher.Horner@cei.org]; skazman@CEl.org[skazman@CEl.org]; M Lew is@ce i.org [M Lew is@ce i.org]; wi 11ia m. ye ~!D::! _______________ , 9_Q.@~~L9_r.9.Lvy_iJU. 9DJj:'_~.§l_t!D.9_n._@~~-i_,q.rn_I;__ ___ kent. lassman@cei.org[kent. lassman@cei.org] ;L._·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·Ex._ 6_- .Personal__ Privacy __________________________ ! i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! '__rich a rd so n@ee lea a I.orq[ rich a rd so n.@eeleq_aI.o rqt.__ ___________ '-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· To: Cc: i i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ' vd.vaart@att.net[vd. vaart@att.net]; abrandon@freedomworks.org[abrandon@freedomworks.org]; . sbourne@qeoraeallen.comrsbourne@qeorneallen.com];__ ____ , i ' i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy LTHuelskamp@heartland.org[THuelskamp@heartland.org]; julie.gunlock@iwf.orgUulie.gunlock@iwf.org]; tpyle@ierdc.org[tpyle@ierdc.org]; tpyle@energydc.org[tpyle@energydc.org]; _i__ _________ .!;~.c.!t.:.E~.r~.9._ll~.l.P..rJ.y~_<:;_y ________ jiQb.O_S..Q_Q@_Q[q_._qr_gLJiqh nson@n rb. org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i 'tgaziano@pacificlegal.org[tgaziano@pacificlegal.org]; jw@pacificlegal.orgUw@pacificlegal.org]; tph illi ps@afphq.org[tph i llips@afphq.org]; brian .seasholes@reason.org[brian .seasholes@reason.org]; daren. bakst@heritage.org[ daren. bakst@heritage.org]; michael.costigan@heritage.org[michael.costigan@heritage.org]; robert.gordon@heritage.org[robert.gordon@heritage.org]; diane. katz@heritage.org[ d iane. katz@heritage.org]; david. kreutzer@heritage.org[ david. kreutzer@heritage.org]; nick.loris@heritage.org[nick.loris@heritage.org]; terry.miller@heritage.org[terry.miller@heritage.org]; bndunlop@heritage.org[bndunlop@heritage.org]; jack.spencer@heritage.orgUack.spencer@heritage.org]; katie. tu bb@heritage.org [katie. tu bb@heritage.org]; robe rt. bl uey@h eritage. org [ robe rt. bluey@heritage.org]; Kevin Butt (TMNA)[kevin.butt@toyota.com]; Gunasekara, Mandy[Gunasekara.Mandy@epa.gov]; Bolen, Brittany[bolen .brittany@epa.gov] From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Mon 4/2/2018 8:04:02 PM Subject: ICYMI: EPA Administrator Pruitt: GHG Emissions Standards for Cars and Light Trucks Should Be Revised SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000015-00001 EPA Administrator Pruitt: GHG Emissions Standards for Cars and Light Trucks Should Be Revised WASHINGTON (April 2, 2018)- Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is announcing the completion of the Midterm Evaluation (MTE) process for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2022-2025, and his final determination that, in light of recent data, the current standards are not appropriate and should be revised. Administrator Pruitt is also announcing the start of a joint process with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop a notice and comment rulemaking to set more appropriate GHG emissions standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. "The Obama Administration's determination was wrong," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. "Obama's EPA cut the Midterm Evaluation process short with politically charged expediency, made assumptions about the standards that didn't comport with reality, and set the standards too high." Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA sets national standards for vehicle tailpipe emissions of certain pollutants. Through a CAA waiver granted by EPA, California can impose stricter standards for vehicle emissions of certain pollutants than federal requirements. The California waiver is still being reexamined by EPA under Administrator Pruitt's leadership. "Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country. EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford -while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars. It is in America's best interest to have a national standard, and we look forward to partnering with all states, including California, as we work to finalize that standard," said Administrator Pruitt. Additional Background As part of the 2012 rulemaking establishing the model year 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG standards, EPA made a regulatory commitment to conduct a MTE of the standards for MY 2022-2025 no later than April 1, 2018. This evaluation would determine whether the standards remain appropriate or should be made more, or less stringent. In November 2016, the Obama Administration short-circuited the MTE process and rushed out their final determination on January 12, 2017, just days before leaving office. Since then, the auto industry and other stakeholders sought a reinstatement of the original MTE timeline, so that the Agency could review the latest information. EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation announced a reestablishment of the MTE process in March 2017. And, in August 2017, EPA reopened the regulatory docket and asked for additional information and data relevant to assessing whether the GHG emissions standards remain appropriate, including information on: consumer behavior, feedback on modeling approaches, and assessing advanced fuels technologies. EPA also held a public hearing on this topic. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000015-00002 For more information: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midtermevaluation-li ht-du -vehicle- reenhouse- as SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000015-00003 Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Gordon, Stephen[gordon.stephen@epa.gov]; Dewey, Amy[Dewey.Amy@epa.gov] Bee: gnorquist@atr.org[gnorquist@atr.org]; sallen@capitalresearch.org[sallen@capitalresearch.org]; SW@Capitalresearch.org[SW@Capitalresearch.org]; pgoettler@cato.org[pgoettler@cato.org]; pmichaels@cato.org[pmichaels@cato.org]; _angela.logomasi_ni@cei.org_[angela.logomasini@cei.org]; tschatz@cagw.org[tschatz@cagw.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i craig@cfact.org[craig@cfact.org]; mebeLll@cei.org[mebell@cei.org]; ' Christopher.Horner@cei.org[Christopher.Horner@cei.org]; skazman@CEl.org[skazman@CEl.org]; MLewis@cei.org[MLewis@cei.org]; william.yeatman@cei.org[william.yeatman@cei.org]; __ k~_ot._tg_$.?.II!9J1@9~L9.rn.l~~ot!g_$..~.IJ.!g.O@G~Lmg_U Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i To: Cc: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy '-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-' Lrichardson@eelegal.org[richardson@eelegal.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ';'------- Ex. s - PersonalPrivacy--------; abrandon@freedomworks.org[abrandon@freedomworks.orgl;" i ________________ , i'sbourne@~qeora~~'.l~n~-~oe~¼~~oa~r~~i~~~orneallen.comJ;~.J THuelskamp@heartland.org[THuelskamp@heartland.org]; julie.gunlock@iwf.orgUulie.gunlock@iwf.org]; tpyle@ierdc.org1tpyle@ierdc.orgJ; tpyle@energydc.org[tpyle@energydc.org]; i-·-·. ·-·-Ex:·-s·~-Pe-rso riafPr1va-cy____ -·:jjoh nson@nrb.org Ujohnson@nrb.org]; ( Ex. 6 - Personal Priv.acy ! L--fgazii!i"no@p~fcitrc1etf arorgif/}az:Tai'fo@pacilfclEfganfrgi; jw@pacifi clega I.org Uw@pacificlega I.org]; tph illi ps@afphq.org[tph i llips@afphq.org]; brian .seasholes@reason.org[brian .seasholes@reason.org]; daren. bakst@heritage.org[ daren. bakst@heritage.org]; michael.costigan@heritage.org[michael.costigan@heritage.org]; robert.gordon@heritage.org[robert.gordon@heritage.org]; diane.katz@heritage.org[diane.katz@heritage.org]; david. kreutzer@heritage.org[ david. kreutzer@heritage.org]; nick.loris@heritage.org[nick.loris@heritage.org]; terry.miller@heritage.org[terry.miller@heritage.org]; bndunlop@heritage.org[bndunlop@heritage.org]; jack.spencer@heritage.orgUack.spencer@heritage.org]; J 9Jl~_._t~_b.J?.@./l_~[i! robe rt. bl uey@h eritage. org [robe rt. bl uey@heritage.org]; 9g53-,9..r_gJ_k_c!tj_~Jl!l?.P.@b.~r.l@g~_gn;1]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i 'Iafffefi~ff6viriiafi@ffefifage:oitf[Caurerf."B6wmafi@heritage.org]; cg len@nam.org[cg len@nam.org]; cdawson@rea Itors. org [cdawson@re a Itors.org]; s prh ines@p9..q_l53-,9..rn.r.?..R[t!.in~.$.@_QQ.P.1~.2mL __________ matt@orangelinecondo.com[matt@orangelinecondo.com]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com[ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com]; creTI1s@noole.org1crelfis@no6le.orgJ; csoderberg@iowarec.org[csoderberg@iowarec.org]; kcondon@iowarec.org[kcondon@iowarec.org]; Adam J White[ajwhite@stanford.edu]; cglen@nam.org[cglen@nam.org]; cdawson@realtors.org[cdawson@realtors.org]; sprhines@noble.org[sprhines@noble.org]; matt@orangelinecondo.com[ matt@orangeli necondo. com]; !_______________ Ex..6 .-.Personal.Privacy ·-·-·-·-·-·-___: ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com[ngarcia@signalgroupdc.com]; crellis@noble.org[crellis@noble.org]; csoderberg@iowarec.org[csoderberg@iowarec.org]; kcondon@iowarec.org[kcondon@iowarec.org]; 'Ryan Hart'[RHart@seminole-electric.com]; 'Barry Hart'[bhart@amec.org]; bhammerich@coloradolivestock.org[bhammerich@coloradolivestock.org]; justin@calcattlemen.orgUustin@calcattlemen.org]; sarah@coloradocattle.org[sarah@coloradocattle.org]; bhammerich@coloradolivestock.org[bhammerich@coloradolivestock.org]; sard@asrlegal.com[sard@asrlegal.com]; kaytlyn@gabeef.org[kaytlyn@gabeef.org]; dale@hicattle.org[dale@hicattle.org]; Britany@idahocattle.org[Britany@idahocattle.org]; jill@illinoisbeef.comUill@illinoisbeef.com]; jmoore@indianabeef.orgUmoore@indianabeef.org]; janlee@iabeef.orgUanlee@iabeef.org]; apopelka@kla.org[apopelka@kla.org]; jredway@kycattle.orgUredway@kycattle.org]; rjoyner@labeef.org[rjoyner@labeef.org]; gquackenbush@mibeef.org[gquackenbush@mibeef.org]; ashley@mnsca.org[ashley@mnsca.org]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy :Candace@mocattle.com[Candace@mocattle.com]; '1<"6rf@mtoe·er6fgfl<6fl@mtl5eef.org];lfield@necattlemen.org[lfield@necattlemen .org]; nca@nevadabeef.org[nca@nevadabeef.org]; nmcga@nmagriculture.org[nmcga@nmagriculture.org]; ph il@trowbridgefarms.com[ph il@trowbridgefarms.com ]; bryan@nccattle.com[bryan@nccattle. com]; 0 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000016-00001 rorvigranchco@gondtc.com[rorvigranchco@gondtc.com]; lcorry@ohiobeef.org[lcorry@ohiobeef.org]; ch an son@o kcattlemen .org [ch an son@o kcattlemen .org] ~--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-. jerome.rosa@orcattle.comUerome.rosa@orcattle.com]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : scbeef@scda.sc.gov[scbeef@scda.sc.gov]; executive@sdcattlemen.org[executive@sdcattlemen.org]; Lau ren@tncattle.org [Lau ren@tncattle.org]; js kii!9Q§_@t$..GGLQrnli§t.9..gg§_@t§_QLq,.9..cqJ.;_ ______ jwinegarner@tcfa.orgUwinegarner@tcfa.org]; ~ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i tfix@vacattlemen.org[tfix@vacattlemen.org]; jackfield@kvalley.comUackfield@kvalley.com]; ___ !"{9g9_f!l~@.~:~; Konkus, John ; Bowman, Liz Subject: EPA website search engine SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000291-00001 EPA staffers, Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp was wondering why your search engine at EPA.gov brings Obama-era information on the Clean Power Plan and not the change of direction under President Trump. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Tim Huelskamp Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:24 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: EPA website search engine Why when I search Clean Power Plan in the media section do I get all of this .... mainly Obama stuff. ... shouldn't search engine first put up Trump statements!? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000291-00002 ews eleases l re s s dean power plan Current search results clean power plan R~S.j;.tAll ..S~ru:th..QJili2fil. Displaying 1 - 15 of 120 FACT SHEET: PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ANNOUNCE HISTORIC CARBON PO STANDARDS FOR POWER PLANTS Release Date: 08/03/2015 6 Things Every American Should Know About the Clean Power Plan Release Date: 08/03/2015 What They Are Saying About President Trun1p's Executive Order on Ene1 Independence Release Date: 03/30/2017 Oban1a Administration Takes Historic Action on Cliinate Change/Clean f to protect public health, spur clean energy invest111ents and strengthen 1 leadership Release Date: 08/03/2015 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000291-00003 Sincerely, Hon. Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D. President, The Heartland Institute Thuclskamp@hcartland.org www.hcartland.org (312) 377-4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000291-00004 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Bowman, Liz[Bowman.Liz@epa.gov] Ferguson, Lincoln[ferguson.lincoln@epa.gov]; Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Thur 11/16/2017 8:22:10 PM RE: EPA Response re WaPo Article I left a message on your phone, Liz. You, Lincoln, or John can call me on my cell anytime: 312-731-9364. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Bowman, Liz [mailto:Bowman.Liz@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11 :21 AM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Ferguson, Lincoln; Konkus, John Subject: EPA Response re WaPo Article Hi Jim - Can you please give me a call with regard to the W aPo article on conservative issues and this Administration? Liz Bowman U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000293-00001 Office: 202-564-3293 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00000293-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Ford, Hayley[ford.hayley@epa.gov] John Nothdurft Thur 11/2/2017 2:59:16 PM Video Request for Heartland's America First Energy Conference Hayley, I hope things are going well there! Thank you for everything the EPA has been doing to protect our environment while also allowing for increase domestic energy production. I wanted to let you know The Heartland Institute is hosting our America First Energy Conference in Houston, Texas on Thursday, November 9, 2017. I believe we were already told Administrator Prnitt was unable to speak in person at the event but we wanted to see ifhe would be willing and able to record a video message to play for the crowd. We have more than 30 members of the media registered including the New York Times, Bloomberg, E&E News, Wall Street-Journal, NPR, and many of the oil and gas trade publications to name a few. We already have someone from Interior and the State Department on the agenda and it would be great to have some comments from the EPA as well (either in person or via recorded video). The conference's purpose, as the name suggests, is to promote the Trnmp administration's excellent agenda on that topic - one that abandons the dead-end "green energy" push of the Obama years. We expect an audience of several hundred energy industry as well as state lawmakers from 28 states at Houston's J.W. Marriott Galleria hotel. For more details about the American First Energy Conference, visit can also send more materials to your staff for review. "-==--"-==-"--'--=-"-=-=--c....;~=· I Please let me know if you are interested in supplying us with a video for the event or if any other SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002075-00001 questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at John@Heartland.org Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it! Respectfully, John N othdurft The Heartland Institute Director of Government Relations Ph: 312-377-4000 Cell: 662-801-2707 Follow me on Twitter SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002075-00002 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Ford, Hayley[ford.hayley@epa.gov] Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 10/10/2017 9:50:48 PM RE: Online Resources Thanks for the reply, Hayley. I understand how turnover can cause some things to slip through the cracks. Thank you, too, John, for your help. Heartland will certainly have another high-profile event in the future for which we'd like Administrator Pruitt to be the keynote, so be on the look out for my email one day. Keep up the good work over there at EPA, and let me know how Heartland can be of assistance in advancing this administration's sensible agenda on climate and energy. Regards, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Ford, Hayley [mailto:ford.hayley@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:06 PM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: Online Resources SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002076-00001 Hello Jim, John sent me the below invitation. I apologize that we haven't yet responded to this request. We had some transition to our scheduling team and unfortunately it fell off our radar. The Administrator will be on travel that day and we must respectfully decline this opportunity. I appreciate the invitation and please do reach out directly to me in the future for any other requests you may have. Thank you again and I apologize that we couldn't make this work. Hayley Ford Deputy White House Liaison Office of the Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Room: 3309C William Jefferson Clinton North ford.ha le @cpa.go_y Phone:202-564-2022 .·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1 Cell: l.Ex. 6 - Personal _Privacyi From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcly@hcartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:22 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: RE: Online Resources Thanks, John. I've updated it with the signature of Tim Huelskamp, our new president. And it's dated yesterday ... though our first request was many weeks ago. It also references our previous request to have him speak at our 12th International Conference SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002076-00002 on Climate Change back in March, which he also had to decline. We've wanted to bring him in to speak for a looooong time. Thanks for your help! Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:52 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: Online Resources The scheduling department is asking if you can resend me the invitation as they can't seem to track it down. Glad I asked :/ From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcly@ heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:30 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: Re: Online Resources Thanks, John. We'll share some of that with our social media accounts. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002076-00003 While I've got you, Heartland has invited Scott Pruitt to be a keynote speaker at our America First Energy Conference on November 9 in Houston. I think it would be a great venue for the administrator to deliver a major address talking about the end of the Clean Power Plan. Do you know the status of our invitation and the chances of him accepting it? Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312-377-4000 f: 312-377-5000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: "Konkus, John" Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 2:24 PM To: "Konkus, John" Subject: Online Resources Here are some official EPA online resources promoting today's action on CPP. Feel free to repost and share. EPA Twitter: h s://twitter.com/EPA/status/917806465062260738 EPA Air Office Twitter: h s://twitter.com/EPAair/status/917809327599181825 Administrator Pruitt Twitter: h s ://twitter.com/EPA ScottPruitt/status/9178024 78845988864 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002076-00004 EPA Facebook: h ps://www.facebook.com/EPA/?hc ref=ARSr6RzCgO0tB23ZzO-5z0iWml KLlZMziss W0s3 FC 'h3ilDw2wkvU 0MkV3 DUb3 Kc&fref=nf Administrator Pruitt Facebook: h s://www.facebook.com/a·ax/sharer?a id=586254444758776&s=I 00&u=htt s%3A %2F%2Fwww.e a. ov~ take s-another-s tep-advance-presi dent- trum ps-ameri ca- first-s trateg -proposes-repeal EPA YouTube: h s://www. outube.com/watch?v= IAkmEWEY 0 &sns=tw EPA Instagram: h ps://instagram.com/p/BaE8O4OFvLs/ John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy! L·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002076-00005 To: From: Sent: Subject: John Nothdurft[JNothdurft@heartland.org] Ford, Hayley Thur 11/2/2017 7:41:55 PM RE: Video Request for Heartland's America First Energy Conference Hello John, Thank you for the invite. Let me check on this and we will get back to you soon. Thanks! Hayley Ford Deputy White House Liaison and Personal Aide to the Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Phone:202-564-2022 Cell:!_Ex._6 _-_Personal_Privacy _i From: John Nothdurft [mailto:JNothdurft@heartland.org] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:59 AM To: Ford, Hayley Subject: Video Request for Heartland's America First Energy Conference Hayley, I hope things are going well there! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002077-00001 Thank you for everything the EPA has been doing to protect our environment while also allowing for increase domestic energy production. I wanted to let you know The Heartland Institute is hosting our America First Energy Conference in Houston, Texas on Thursday, November 9, 2017. I believe we were already told Administrator Prnitt was unable to speak in person at the event but we wanted to see ifhe would be willing and able to record a video message to play for the crowd. We have more than 30 members of the media registered including the New York Times, Bloomberg, E&E News, Wall Street-Journal, NPR, and many of the oil and gas trade publications to name a few. We already have someone from Interior and the State Department on the agenda and it would be great to have some comments from the EPA as well (either in person or via recorded video). The conference's purpose, as the name suggests, is to promote the Trnmp administration's excellent agenda on that topic - one that abandons the dead-end "green energy" push of the Obama years. We expect an audience of several hundred energy industry as well as state lawmakers from 28 states at Houston's J.W. Marriott Galleria hotel. For more details about the American First Energy Conference, visit=-==-"-==-"--'---"--"==~=- I can also send more materials to your staff for review. Please let me know if you are interested in supplying us with a video for the event or if any other questions you might have regarding our event. You can reach me at 312/377-4000, or by email at Please know that everyone here at Heartland is pulling for you and the entire Trump administration to be a success. Nothing less than the future of liberty is riding on it! Respectfully, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002077-00002 John N othdurft The Heartland Institute Director of Government Relations Ph: 312-377-4000 Cell: 662-801-2707 http://www.hcartland.org Follow me on Twitter SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002077-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 9/18/2017 4:09:54 PM A surprisingly accurate Washington Post article about EPA SAB nominees The Washington Post reports on some of the candidates for the EPA's Science Advisory Board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/cncrg; -cnvironmcnt/wp/20 I 7/09/ I 8/ncxt-epa-scicnceadviscrs-could-includc-thosc-who-qucstion-climate-change/?nid&utm tcrm=.6a544790a795 The full article is below. They interviewed and quote past statements by realists that make them sound serious and not crazy, unlike the recent E&E News story. The alarmist spin on climate science are not referred to as "the science," unlike the recent Washington Examiner story, and only two or three references are made to the alleged "scientific consensus" without the usual unthinking and stupid "overwhelming" adjective. The writers accurately report that The Heartland Institute "suggested" but did not "nominate" people, and that some of these climate realists are "affiliated" with Heartland but only as policy advisors or speakers at past events. I guess even liberal activists pretending to be reporters can sometime put on a good act. I'm not getting my hopes up that this is the beginning of a trend. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002205-00001 Next EPA science advisers could include those who question climate change By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis September 18 at 6:00 AM People who have questioned aspects of mainstream climate research appear on a list of 132 possible candidates for positions on EPA's influential Science Advisory Board, which the agency has opened for public comment until September 28. The board currently has 47 members, but 15 have terms ending in September and could be replaced by some of the candidates. One candidate believes more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will "confer great benefits upon future inhabitants of the globe" by driving plant growth. Another has said of the climate change debate that "scare tactics and junk science are used to secure lucrative government contracts." Five candidates have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's own science on the warming of the planet in court. The board nomination process is an open one - anyone can nominate anyone else for consideration - and an EPA official involved in the process said that there had been "no whittling down" of the names submitted, other than making sure those nominated were indeed interested. The list includes scientists with diverse subject matter expertise and a long lists of credentials. But the inclusion of a handful of climate contrarians has caused early concern among environmental groups and some employees at the agency. "We should be able to trust that those who serve the EPA are the all-stars in their fields and committed to public service," said Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He said the upcoming round of appointments will test whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is "remotely interested" in independent scientific advice. "He already has a parade of lobbyists and advisers providing him with the perspectives from oil, gas, and chemical companies. The Science Advisory Board is a check on political influence and can help the agency determine whether the special interests are SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002205-00002 telling it straight." The EPA official, who requested anonymity because the selection process is ongoing, said that after the public comment period ends, staff members likely will scale down the list of nominees to a smaller group of qualified candidates, with an emphasis on balancing out the board and trying to make sure there are experts across a range of disciplines, from hydrology to microbiology to statistics. But the final decision of who winds up advising the EPA resides with one person. "Administrator Pruitt ultimately makes that decision," the official said. E&E News last week identified about a dozen board candidates that it said had previously expressed skepticism of widely accepted findings of climate science. Even though none may ultimately end up on the board, the current list is raising eyebrows in light of Pruitt's own statements questioning the human role in climate change and the agency's removal of an informational website that publicly presented established climate science. "There are definitely some inappropriate names on there," said one EPA scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. "I don't know how concerned to be. But I'm hoping that the scientific community comments actively on the list." Several of the candidates are affiliated with the Heartland Institute, an Illinois-based conservative think tank with a long history of questioning various aspects of climate change science. E&E News reported that it had suggested a number of the names. "We applaud any effort by Administrator Pruitt to bring qualified non-alarmist scientists onto the EPA's advisory boards," Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely told the publication. One Heartland-affiliated scientist who is now a candidate for the EPA board is meteorologist Joseph D 'Aleo, a co-founder of the Weather Channel and currently chief forecaster with WeatherBELL Analytics LLC. D 'Aleo was one of 13 scientists who submitted an amicus brief in litigation over the EPA's Clean Power Plan, challenging the agency's science, including its key finding that atmospheric carbon dioxide, by driving climate change, endangers human health and welfare. "EPA has no proof whatsoever that CO2 has a statistically significant impact on global temperatures," the scientists, including D' Aleo, wrote. "In fact, many scientists feel no such proof exists." D' Aleo reiterated his skepticism that humans are driving a steady warming of the globe through greenhouse gas emissions, instead saying he thinks urbanization is creating pockets of heat where people live. "I really believe that virh1ally all of the warming is due to population building out cities and even building out small towns," D' Aleo said. D' Aleo also has opposed the agency's 2009 "endangerment finding," a scientific document that SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002205-00003 provided the basis for the Obama administration's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. "If I was asked to participate, I would want to find out how much I can do and what they plan to do with the endangerment finding before I made my decision," he said. Four other scientists who co-authored a legal brief challenging EPA' s conclusion regarding human-caused climate change also appear on the list of advisory board candidates. One of them, astrophysicist Gordon Fulks, wrote in The Oregonian in 2010 that he is "concerned that many who promote the idea of catastrophic global warming reduce science to a political and economic game." Fulks also is a policy adviser with the Heartland Institute. Asked his take on the causes of global temperature change, Fulks responded by email that the Earth has seen "modest warming as we have come out of the Little Ice Age since about 1830 in ice core temperature reconstmctions. That surely says that the warming over the last almost two centuries is natural in origin." He also said that the Science Advisory Board has suffered from conflicts of interest and that "my hope is to make sure that the decisions that the EPA makes regarding regulations are firmly based in science and not superstition." Another scientist, Craig Idso, is chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, where he has written that "the modem rise in the air's CO2 content is providing a tremendous economic benefit to global crop production." Yet another scientist, Richard Keen, is a meteorologist and author who traveled with the Heartland Institute to Rome in 2015 for a "prebuttal" to Pope Francis's encyclical on climate change. There, he argued that "in the past 18 years and how many months, four months, there has been no global warming." Another candidate, Anthony Lupo, is an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Missouri. In 2014, he told a local Missouri media outlet, KOMU 8, that "I think it is rash to put the climate change completely on the blame of humans." Under Pruitt, the agency has already removed a Web page devoted to climate change science that presented the scientific consensus view that it is largely caused by humans, and Pmitt has endorsed the idea of a "Red Team"/"Blue Team" exercise, in which a group of outside critics would interrogate the validity of mainstream scientific conclusions. The agency also has begun taking steps to roll back Obama-era climate regulations, while President Tmmp has proposed deep cuts to climate research. The EPA has already seen a controversy involving a separate advisory board, the Board of Scientific Counselors, where a number of researchers expecting to have their terms renewed were informed by the new administration that they would not be retained. The EPA said in a public notice that for the Science Advisory Board, it is seeking expertise in a wide range of areas, extending far beyond fields generally relevant to what is happening with the climate, such as "chemical safety; green chemistry; homeland security; uncertainty analysis; and waste management." But it is also looking for expertise in "atmospheric sciences," where much SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002205-00004 climate knowledge lies. "The Science Advisory Board of the EPA hardly ever takes on the issue of [is] climate change real," said William Schlesinger, a current board member and the president emeritus of the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies. "They take on things like, what should be new emissions standards for the oil and gas industry, or just recently, what would be standards for performance for the airline industry." For his part, D 'Aleo says that on climate change, the Science Advisory Board needs more diversity of opinion. "You don't go anywhere," he said, "if you just put together a committee of like minded people that just share the same opinion." Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002205-00005 computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002205-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 9/18/2017 2:49:08 PM EXAMINER: EPA needs to stick to its knitting This is an excellent editorial in The Washington Examiner, and it is doubly impressive that EPA chose to distribute it without comment. Too bad the Examiner's news reporters aren't as good as its editorial board. Joe From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmail20.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:15 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: EXAMINER: EPA needs to stick to its knitting THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER EPA Needs To Stick To Its Knitting Editorial September 18, 2017 htt1 ://www.washinqtonexaminer.com/e~ a-needs-to-stick-to-its-knittinq/article/2634483 Barack Obama decided that the 1992 Clean Air Act gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to force states to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. He also expanded the Clean Water Act with a regulation called "Waters of the United States," which aimed to give the EPA regulatory control over land if sometimes it holds standing water. The running theme of the Obama EPA was expanding the agency's reach and multiplying its responsibilities. This campaign was repeatedly halted by courts, but it has threatened to erode liberty and make life more expensive for families, farmers, and companies. But the most tangible consequence of the EPA's mission creep has been the neglect of its core functions. Trump's EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt laid out Obama's legacy in a recent interview with the Washington Examiner. "He left us with more Superfund sites than when he came in," Pruitt said, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002206-00001 referring to contaminated lands which the EPA is supposed to be remediating. "He had Gold King and Flint, Michigan," Pruitt went on, referring to the massive 2015 spill of mine waste into the Animas and San Juan Rivers. Obama also left "air quality standards 40 percent of the country in nonattainment," Pruitt added. The problem? Obama's EPA wouldn't stick to its knitting. Pruitt aptly described the EPA's mindset under Obama: "We think we just ought to re-imagine authority because you know what? We don't know if people are going to pass regulations or states are going to do their jobs." Pruitt promises to return the EPA to its proper mission and to limit its activities to those actually prescribed by Congress. Will Pruitt's EPA address greenhouse gas emissions? Obama justified his Clean Power Plan by asserting the urgency of the issue. But the executive's belief that an issue is important doesn't give the executive branch the power to address an issue. The EPA has only the power Congress has given it. Repeatedly, Obama tried to get Congress to pass climate legislation. Repeatedly, he failed. This should have been taken as a sign that there is no democratic will for it. But Obama took these failures exactly the wrong way, deciding that if Congress won't act, he would act on his own. This is like a soldier deciding that if his officers won't give him permission to shoot, he'll just have to give himself the order to fire. On climate, Pruitt says the relevant question is "what tools are in the toolbox of this agency to deal with CO2?" Neither Pruitt nor Trump are allowed to put tools in there. Only Congress can. "We're not going to simply just make up our authority," Pruitt said. Doing exactly what you are called to do by the proper authorities is not a very exciting mission. But such is the lot of conservatism. Executive agencies are role-players, and even the president doesn't get to determine their role. The Constitution is very clear that Congress alone has that power. We applaud Pruitt's mission of restoring the EPA to its proper shape and size. And we hope he has the humility, the diligence, and the skill to pull it off, for the sake of the Constitution, the economy, and the environment. To Continue Reading Click Here U.S Environmen1.al Protection Aqency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Nor1hwest Washington, D.C. 20004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002206-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 9/15/2017 1:48:49 PM Justin Haskins in the Orlando Sentinel: Liberal Bias Has Reached Disturbing New Heights Another piece of possible interest. Joe Joseph Bast CEO The Heartland Institute Office 312/377-4000 Cell 312/208-8989 h ://www.orlandosentincl.com/o inion/os-ed-liberal-media-bias-front-bumcr-20170912story.html Orlando Sentinel 9/15/17 Liberal Bias Has Reached Disturbing New Heights By: Justin Haskins, the Heartland Institute A truly objective press has never existed in the United States, but the news media's current commitment to destroy the JrunJQ administration has revealed the sad reality that much of the American press is hardly engaging in journalism at all. Instead, the media have manipulated the public with falsehoods, trafficked in fear, and mastered hypocrisy in ways that have never before been witnessed. And as a result, our republic has been put in grave danger. For those of you who deny such a bias exists, the statistics are overwhelming and clear. Media Research Center researchers Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella analyzed evening news media coverage of the Trump administration on ABG, CBS and NBC during Trump's first 100 days in office. They found those outlets made 1,501 negative statements about the president, excluding SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002207-00001 statements made by "partisans,"compared to only 186 positivestatements, a negative-news rate of nearly 90 percent. Some mightthink because journalistshave a responsibilityto be the public'swatchdog and to be unafraidto speak truth to power, news coverage of any president'sfirst 100 days would be highlycritical,but the evidence says otherwise.A 2009 MRC study shows the majorityof the evening news media's coverage of President Barack Obama's first 100 days in officewas positive,rangingfrom a positive-newsrate of 58 percent to 82 percent. Similarly,a study by Thomas E. Patterson at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government determined80 percent of the news coverage of the Trump administrationin its first 100 days was negative, "settinga new standardfor unfavorablepress coverage of a president." Criticsof Trump will likely argue the massive differencein the media's treatment of the past two presidentsis well-deserved, but this would suggestthe media are fairly coveringTrump's positivenews stories but that there are simplyfewer of them to report. The evidence suggests the oppositeis true. From Trump's inaugurationthroughthe beginningof August, the Dow Jones IndustrialAverage set 31 record closinghighs, but 80 percent of those recordswere ignored by the evening news programsof ABC, CBS and NBC on the days they occurred. Not only has the news media overemphasizednegative storiesand underreportedpositivenews stories related to the Trump administration,it has also publishedor aired numerous embarrassingand highly partisan reportsthat are unlike anythingdistributedby the mainstream press before. For instance, in May, CNN aired a segment titled "PresidentGets 2 Scoops of Ice Cream, Everyone Else 1," duringwhich the networksuggestedTrump is a greedy gluttonduring meals at the White House. In August, Time published"Meet the Man Behind the Big InflatableTrump Rat Mocking Him in New York," which featured art gallery owners John Lee and Karin Bravin. They created an "orange-faced,rat-human hybrid"inflatablemeant to look like Trump. It had, accordingto Time's description,"extravoluminousears, pursed lips, buck teeth" and an "unmistakablered tie, a long tail, and an extra dig: Confederate flag cufflinks." Can you imagine a similarfeature being publishedby Time duringthe Obama administration? This media bias shouldn'tcome as a surprise;researchersLars Willnat and David H. Weaver, both professorsat Indiana University,found in their 2013 survey only 7.1 percent of journalists identifyas Republican. In 1971, 25. 7 percent of journalistssaid they identifiedas Republican. The problem isn'tjust tied to party affiliation,either. Because the print news industryis being replaced by a more-centralizedinternet-basedmedia, news outlets are increasinglybeing headquarteredin left-leaningpopulationcenters on the East and West Coasts. Politicoreported that in 2016 "morethan half of publishingemployees worked in countiesthat (Hillary) Clinton won by 30 pointsor more." It's no wonder then Gallup reportsonly one-thirdof Americans have a "great deal" or "fair SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002207-00002 amount" of trust in the news media and a Harvard-Harris poll found 65 percent of voters say there is a significant amount of "fake news" in the mainstream press. The news media's bias has reached an all-time high, and if something doesn't change soon, people will increasingly put their trust in the hands of people who tell them what they want to hear rather than report real news, or - even worse - people could turn the news off entirely, allowing the government to run amok without any accountability. Justin Haskins is executive editor of The Heartland Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002207-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 9/15/2017 1:30:16 PM Big Mistake: Trump officials eying replacement for key Obama climate rule The Clean Power Plan has entered the "repeal and replace, or just repeal?" zone. We know what happened when the Affordable Care Act entered that zone ... now we're fighting the Democrats' counter-proposal, "Medicare for All." The GOP had the votes for a straight up repeal of the ACA, they have them to repeal the Clean Power Plan. Just do it. Edison Electric Institute has long been a traitor to the rest of the energy industry and to electricity consumers. They should not be allowed in the WH. Joe http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/350759-trump-officials-eying-replacementfor-key-obama-climate-rule Trump officials eying replacement for key Obama climate rule By Timothy Cama - 09/15/17 06:00 AM EDT The Trump administration is planning to pursue a less ambitious, more industry friendly climate change rule for coal-fired power plants as it works to scrap the one written under former President Barack Obama. Multiple sources familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plans say that as soon as next month, the EPA could put out a preliminary proposal for a rule to replace the Clean Power Plan. President Trump, EPA head Scott Pruitt and others in the administration have long been critics of the Obama climate rule, and are skeptical that human-produced emissions are changing the climate. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002208-00001 But the administration is starting to accept arguments from industry and business groups that for reasons like regulatory certainty and legal prudence, some limits on carbon emissions from power plants are a good idea. "This is just sort of the least worst option," one person familiar with the plans said. The regulation is likely to focus solely on the carbon reductions that can be achieved at the coal-fired power plants themselves - mainly improving the efficiency of coal-fired generators, an approach known as "inside the fenceline." That's in contrast to Obama's rule, which was "outside the fenceline." It ordered a 32 percent cut to the power sector's carbon emissions, and based each state's reductions on a formula that judged how much each state could achieve not just in efficiency, but also through utilities using more low-carbon power sources like natural gas and renewables. The shift in approach means that the carbon reductions achievable through the Trump rule would be much lower than Obama's, angering environmentalists, who support the Clean Power Plan. David Doniger, director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's clean air and climate program, said the efficiency focus wouldn't fulfill the EPA's duty under the Clean Air Act to order the maximum reductions that can be affordably achieved. "This does not meet the legal obligation, and in fact, it could produce more emissions, not less," he said. "The obligation under the law is to reduce carbon emissions the most you can at a reasonable cost. This would not meet that test." Doniger argued that if coal plants are made more efficient, they would become cheaper to operate and utilities would operate them more, which would actually increase emissions. "You'd be moving in the wrong direction in terms of net carbon emissions," he said. "It'll be a problem for Pruitt and company to overcome." The EPA declined to comment on the replacement plans, which were first reported by Politico. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002208-00002 Pruitt hasn't yet spoken publicly about whether he wants to replace the climate rule. At a May event hosted by law firm Faegre Baker Daniels, he said the EPA might not have the responsibility or the authority to regulate carbon from power plants. "I think it's yet to be determined," Pruitt said. "I think there's a fair question to be asked and answered on that issue with stationary sources [of emissions]. What are the tools in the toolbox?" Sources familiar with the administration's discussions said Pruitt has been resistant to the idea of a new climate rule, despite widespread business and industry support for the idea. "He just wanted to kill it, not replace," a source said. "The White House really had to lean on him." Business groups have been consistently pushing the administration for the new rule, including at a series of official meetings in July with the White House Office of Management and Budget as part of its formal review of the EPA's repeal plans. Mike Catanzaro, Trump's top energy adviser, attended one of those meetings with the Edison Electric Institute (EEi), the lobby for investor-owned utility companies, according to White House records. The groups have a few arguments for a new rule: it could protect from lawsuits against the EPA to mandate a carbon rule, it could protect individual companies from lawsuits for their own emissions and it could set a favorable precedent for how the EPA regulates emissions. "As EPA moves to repeal the current Clean Power Plan we have been supportive of the need to also move forward with a replacement rule," said Jeff Ostermayer, spokesman for EEi. The National Association of Manufacturers has a similar argument. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002208-00003 "We've been very concerned about the breadth of this regulation, looking at it from a legal, precedential standpoint," Ross Eisenberg, the group's vice president for energy, said of the Clean Power Plan. "Something more narrowly tailored, that's in line with where we believe the statute was originally intended to go, is something that would be a better-looking rule." A replacement rule could even win over conservative and free-market groups that have pushed the Trump administration to take bold action against Obama's climate agenda. Those groups still want the administration to try at some point to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which is the lynch pin of climate regulation that officially found that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and the environment. But before that happens, conservatives would accept a narrower rule. "An inside-the-fenceline rule would comply with law and with the endangerment finding while still keeping President Trump's promise to rescind the 'Clean Power' Plan. An inside-the-fenceline rule is not the 'Clean Power' Plan and will not cause utilities to close coal-fired power plants," said Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise lnstitute's energy and environment center, and leader of Trump's transition team for the EPA. "I think it is the appropriate action to take until such time as the endangerment finding is withdrawn," he said. Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, also said he is confident that the administration is fulfilling its promise to repeal the Clean Power Plan. "Until the administration takes on the endangerment finding or Congress amends the Clean Air Act, the EPA is obligated to do something," Pyle argued. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002208-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 9/14/2017 4:27:36 PM E&E News lies and lies and lies .... Friends, Below is a fake news story by Scott Walden, an E&E News "reporter," titled "The skeptics who could snag science adviser slots." The article ends with some good quotations from Steve Milloy, but before that, this fake reporter writes, The Heartland Institute - a Chicago-based free-market think tank that pushes alternative climate science - nominated many of the current prospects. Heartland did not "nominate" anyone to any advisory committee. I only encouraged people to apply, virtually everyone nominated themselves, I did not nominate a single person, and no one else affiliated with Heartland nominated anyone. Jim Lakely has asked the reporter to retract this statement. Ed Berry is cited as the source of the reporter's lie: Berry, who confirmed that he and a number of other skeptics were nominated by Heartland, said he wants to use his position on the board to show that humans barely contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which he claimed are mostly driven by natural factors. Ed has asked the reporter to revise this statement. Ed thought he heard me say, at our first Red Team briefing, that Heartland had nominated him and others to advisory panels. In fact, I only provided to the administration a list of some 200 people I believe are credible experts on climate change. One could say I "endorsed" them but I did not "nominate" anyone for anything. And by the by, the inference that David Legates is somehow funded by Koch Industries SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002209-00001 Inc. is just despicable. David is not, and neither is The Heartland Institute, not directly or indirectly or three steps removed. In a better world, this libel would be punished and this fake "reporter" would be fired. Alas, our foes have no integrity, and the inmates run the asylum. Joe Joseph L. Bast CEO The Heartland Institute EPA The skeptics who could snag science adviser slots Published: Thursday, September 14, 2017 Climate skeptics may soon join a key science advisory panel at U.S. EPA. A number of people who reject the findings of mainstream climate science are being considered by the Trump administration for spots on EPA's Science Advisory Board, a voluntary but influential panel that reviews science used in environmental regulations. At least one nominee hopes to use a position on the board to challenge the science undergirding many environmental regulations. One has said in a statement that the world must "abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade." Another compared people concerned about climate change to "Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts." EPA has submitted 132 == for public comment as possible members of the panel. About a dozen of them have made comments rejecting mainstream climate science. Many have connections to the fossil fuel industry or conservative think tanks, and some have received funding to attack the findings of mainstream scientists that humans are warming the globe at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002209-00002 The selection of any of those researchers would be the beginning of a very different advisory board that would bear the hallmark of the Trump administration's position on climate change, said Steve Milloy, an attorney and longtime EPA foe who worked on President Trump's transition team for the agency. "Had some other Republican won the presidency and a swamp creature taken over the EPA, this would not be happening," he said, "but thank God for Scott Pruitt that he's got the courage to do this." The Heartland Institute - a Chicago-based free-market think tank that pushes alternative climate science nominated many of the current prospects. Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said in an email: "We applaud any effort by Administrator Pruitt to bring qualified non-alarmist scientists onto the EPA's advisory boards. There is a vigorous debate over the causes and consequences of climate change, and it's vital that EPA acknowledge that fact and have a more balanced approach to the agency's rule-making." The long list of nominees - identified by EPA staff members who oversee the advisory board - also includes mainstream climate scientists who have extensive experience working with the United Nations and EPA on climate change. Former top Obama EPA science official Paul Anastas made the list. The deadline for public comment is set to expire Sept. 28. After that, EPA boss Pruitt will have final approval on the candidates. The board has 48 member slots, 15 of which expire at the end of the month. It's not clear how many positions will be filled. The SAB, created in 1978, is tasked with "independent advice and peer review on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to the EPA's Administrator." An EPA spokesman has said the agency wants industry to have a greater role than it has had previously in evaluating the science used by EPA to craft regulations. Traditionally, most of the SAB members are from academia, though some have also come from industry and environmental groups. The SAB is essential to the functioning of EPA because it is chartered by law to ensure the agency is using the best available science for regulations, said Peter Thorne, the board's current chairman and director of the Environmental Health Sciences Research Center at the University of Iowa. He said the SAB has a wide range of tasks that touch on almost every aspect of EPA's functioning. He said it's not just EPA that draws on its work - it's also state governments, nongovernmental organizations and private companies. "The EPA Science Advisory Board needs to have people who are well-versed in the science that underlies the decisions that EPA makes, so if there are people who end up on the board who have views that are not grounded in solid science, then that is a problem," Thorne said. Pruitt's prospects Here are some of the skeptical nominees under consideration: Joseph D'Aleo, a certified consultant meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel: He has run climate skeptic websites and has appeared as a speaker at Heartland conferences. D'Aleo said his priority on the board would be attacking the endangerment finding, the legally binding document that holds that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases harm human health and must be regulated by the executive branch. He said he wants to challenge the finding because it could otherwise be used later to build back Obama-era environmental regulations. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002209-00003 "We're going to push for reconsideration, start from scratch and put together the best science," he said. "If CO2 is not a serious pollutant, let's focus the attention of the EPA on other issues." Edwin Berry, a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist: He has funded his own climate research and says human carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change. He has compared those who believe in human-caused climate change to "Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps." On his Twitter account, he has called Islam "a death cult" and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters. Berry, who confirmed that he and a number of other skeptics were nominated by Heartland, said he wants to use his position on the board to show that humans barely contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which he claimed are mostly driven by natural factors. "Let's get over this whole thing about climate change being an important thing, because in fact we humans have a negligible impact on climate," he said. "And ifwe had the Paris Agreement and everything else, it wouldn't do any good anyway." Alan Carlin, a retired EPA employee who is affiliated with Heartland: He fought the agency's crafting of the endangerment finding. Carlin, an economist, was at the center of a political firestorm under Obama after he produced a widely criticized 93-page report comprising cherry-picked scientific data and blog entries concluding that regulating carbon dioxide was "the worst mistake that EPA has ever made." Kevin Dayaratna, a statistician at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His report was cited by Trump as a reason to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. It claimed that the agreement could shrink U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 trillion within two decades (though Trump stated the impact as coming within a decade). The report was criticized by some as being misleading, because that amount is less than 1 percent of the aggregate GDP over that period and the report did not account for the cost of taking no climate change action. Dayaratna was invited to attend Trump's withdrawal announcement in June in the White House Rose Garden. Craig ldso, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute: He has researched the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. His work has centered on highlighting how increased carbon dioxide will benefit plants. Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian environmental think tank: His organization handed out leaflets at a climate protest this year in Washington, D.C., that said, "CO2 is not the 'control knob' of the climate." He also co-founded Climate Exit, or "Clexit," which criticized the science behind the Paris climate agreement and holds that spiking levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide benefit the Earth. "The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade," the group stated in its founding statement. "Man does not and cannot control the climate." Gordon Fulks, a physicist and adviser to the Cascade Policy Institute, an Oregon-based libertarian think tank: He has denied that net sea ice melt is occurring and that the Earth is warming. He has said those who express concern about climate change are like a "societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus." Anthony Lupo, another founding member of Clexit: He has received support from the Heartland Institute and helped in the unsuccessful fight against the endangerment finding in court. Leighton Steward, a former energy company executive and a founder of groups that promote the rise of carbon dioxide as a benefit: He has also encouraged the United States to drop out of the Paris climate accord and says that natural warming is raising the temperature of the Earth. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002209-00004 David Legates, a professor of climatology at the University of Delaware: He has denied that humancaused climate change could have catastrophic consequences and has co-authored climate research claiming polar bears are not harmed by human-caused climate change that was quietly funded, at least in part, by Koch Industries Inc. Critics want to boot EPA 'cronies' Republican lawmakers and other conservatives have long wanted to revamp the board. House Republicans have repeatedly tried to increase industry's role on the board, and this year they passed a perennial bill, the "Science Advisory Board Reform Act." Some conservative lawmakers have accused the board of being politically biased. Critics of the legislation say it's designed to make it harder for academics to serve on the board. Pruitt seems determined to leave his mark on EPA's advisory boards. In April, EPA dismissed about half of the 18 members of its Board of Scientific Counselors, just weeks after they had been told that they would be appointed to a second term -which is generally the practice. That board is largely tasked with technical and management reviews of EPA research programs. By contrast, the SAB has a more significant role: It was created by law and evaluates science that informs regulations, including those that affect the fossil fuel industry. EPA did not respond to requests for comment for this story. The Trump transition team at EPA recommended a complete reworking of all of its science advisory boards, and this is part of that process, Milloy said. He added that he expects the panel's composition will change even more as additional spots open and Pruitt can stamp it with his influence. And while think tanks have typically been excluded from the SAB, Milloy said, he expects that will now change. Milloy accused the panels of being rubber stamps and said they should be "reconstituted" because they lean toward environmentalism and liberal politics. "They're cronies of EPA, they fall in line, they do what EPA wants," he said. "It's extraordinarily rare that they dare to question the EPA and, if they do, then the EPA just ignores them. If they're not rubber stamps, then they're useless." Twitter: ((/:scottpwaldman Email: swaldman((/:ccncws.nct SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002209-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 9/13/2017 6:52:51 PM Climate Change Weekly #261: Trump Keeping Climate Promises I think this issue of Climate Change Weekly may be of special interest to you. Joe Bast CEO The Heartland Institute Cell 312/208-8989 From: Heartland Institute: H. Sterling Burnett i.:...:...:.;:======:...:.==, Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:40 PM To: Diane Bast Subject: Test Message - Climate Change Weekly #261: Trump Keeping Climate Promises SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002210-00001 Climate Change Weekly #261: Trump Keeping Climate Promises Gridlock in the congressionalswamp is not slowingPresident Donald Trump's efforts to roll back ineffective but extremely costlyclimate programs and regulations. Duringthe 2016 presidentialcampaign,Trump said the United States faced many more important problemsthan climate change, pledgingto roll back climate policieshamperingeconomic growth and domestic energy development. Since becomingpresident,Trump has kept that promise,removingscores of climate-related executive orders and regulations. Trump's biggest move came on June 1, when he withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, under which former President Barack Obama committed the United States to reducingits greenhousegas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, at a cost of billions of dollars to peoples' pocketbooks. Earlier in his presidency,on March 28, Trump issued an executive order directingEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan (CPP), an onerous regulationintended to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere,and rescind or revise it, if necessary, to promotethe wise developmentof natural resources, unencumber energy production,and increase the number of jobs. If implemented, CPP would have averted less than a tenth of a degree of potentialfuture warming by 2100, an amount too low to measure accurately.Yet the cost in terms of dollars and jobs would have been enormous. Estimates pegged CPP's cost to the economy between $8.4 billion and $39 billion per year. Consumers' electricitybills would increase 11 to 14 percent annually,and more than 100,000 jobs in manufacturingand other sectors would be lost each year. Trump also has withdrawn supportfor various governmentclimate programs requiringscarce SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002210-00002 resources and time from various agencies. For instance, on August 19, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notified members of the Federal Advisory Committee for the fkiffli®l'Sf9e®nal Climate Assessment their services were no longer needed as it was shutting down the committee. • • Good but hidden news about sea levels Paris supp rters behind on commitments The 1~@~8'vlrs~~lliW,1-~fd~~d in 2015 by the Obama administration, included varfo11§-Nfil!~:41f~i~efffQ9tffilb~&BPI:!-,, including members of environmental activist groups, publicofficials,lawyers,sociologists,corporaterepresentatives,and a few scientists from various fields. The committee's chairman, Richard Moss, with his publicand international affairs doctorate from Princeton,had previouslyserved as vice presidentand managingdirector for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund. 1 §~~i9g~!fS~, ~~~~n~~'t%%M?J1Jurc/=~1~~~~~ponsor the Climate LeadershipAwards, a program honoringvoluntarycorporateactions to combat global warming. EPA was the lead sponsor of the Climate Leadershipprogram since it was instituted under Obama in 2012. In failed presidentialcandidate Al Gore's warmed-over "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power," Gore linked human-caused warming to floodingin Miami. As usual, Gore and other climate alarmistsdon't let the truih aetjo the wav of .a.aooctscare stOLV ..Wh.atGore said lust isn't so. or even greater import,1fa~eu oy TransportanonSecretary 1=ra1ne L. Gtiao ana 1 reasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin at an August 15 press conference at Trump Tower in New York, Trump signed an executive order (EO) eliminatingand streamliningregulationsin order to speed the construction of critical infrastructure like roads, bridges,and pipelines. In an interview concerningGore's claim, Florida InternationalUniversitysea level expert Shimon Wdowinski,while grantingglacial melt does affect sea level rise, said the recent surge in sea levels in Miami had more to do with "short-term variabilitycaused by changes in ocean currents," g{~t~rr! mtlf rij ~~ i~obu~J ~ pe woul~ve~o %e a ro "rds set by Obama requiringthe federal governmentto account for climate change when buildinginfrastructure. . . .. . . Rep. Rob Bishop(R-UT), among others, applaudedTrump's EO in a statement, saying, "It's encouragingto have a presidentwho understands that regulatoryreform is a preconditionfor any §'OOR'e~~n,!w~Vi~SW91-i1IBHW ~nd Watts Up With That ntable appointeeto vet the billions of Iy r er to ensure fundingfocuses on the policy han allowingcareer bureaucrats wedded to their continue to fund programs the Trump own or ieve meaningfulgoals. adminis Anew strialized countryis failingto meet the pledges k'fn-..n.-----,,--,,,h-..,a,;,~-TTTI-rn-rrr"rcrrrrn~house gas emissions. While emission rates are SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002210-00003 John Konkus, the man charged with reviewing the awards and grants, has told staff he is watching for "the double C-word"-climate change-instructing organizations seeking EPA funding to eliminate references to the subject in their grant requests. While the legacy media pushes the narrative Trump is failing to enact his agenda, Trump plows ahead, reining in climate regulations that do nothing to protect peoples' health but would undermine efforts to bring about American energy and economic dominance. Some of Trump'schanges are small, but the small stuff adds up, and Americans will benefit from his deregulatoryactions. - H. Sterling Burnett SOURCES: The Hill; The New York Times; Fortune; and The Washington Post fallingin almost all industrialized countries,the rates are fallingtoo slowlyto meet the pledges governmentsmade in Paris, and the declines themselves are due almost entirelyto improved industrial efficiencyor an economic slowdown,not climate policies. Japan, for instance,has pledgedto reduce greenhousegas emissions 26 percentbelow 2013 levels by 2030. Yet, the paper's analysisshows,Japan is unlikelyto supply20 to 22 percentof electricityfrom carbon-free nuclear power by 2030 because "just5 of the country's42 nuclear reactors are producingelectricity[and] efforts to restart more are mired in politicaland regulatory issues in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-reactor disaster." The authors also write the European Union (EU) is confrontinga huge gap between their Paris commitments and actions taken to meet them. Fifty-fivepercentof Europe'semissions come from economic sectors outside the EU's emissions tradingscheme, for instance from buildings, transport,agriculture,and waste: sectors where member countries have weak regulations,poor accountingstandards,and a historyof lax enforcement. SOURCE: Nature SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002210-00004 RECORD RAINFALL, FLOODS, NOT INCREASING Despitethe headline-gatheringattention the Texas and Louisiana coasts are gettingas a result of the Hurricane Harvey rainfall deluge, two new studies show any anthropogenicrole in extreme rainfall events is likelyminimal. Records from various locations in the United States and the world show recent record rainfall events are rare, with no records in different locations across different time scales being broken in the United States since 1981. Just lookingin and around coastal Texas, for instance: Galveston 1871 - 3.95" in 15 minutes; Woodward Ranch 1935-15.0" in two hours;Thrall 1921 - 36.4" in 18 hours; and Alvin 1979 43" in 24 hours. The rainfall from Harvey never reached these totals. In addition,a recent study in The Journal of Hydrologyexamined the annual-maximum flow from major flood events, those with the greatest societal impacts,findingmajor flood events were not correlated with human-influenced climate change but rather were dominated by multidecadal variability.The researchers examined data from more than 1,200 flood gauges in minimally altered catchments (those not affected by large-scaledevelopmentincludingimpervioussurfaces and artificial channelization of streams and rivers), in North America and Europe, to understand trends in major-floodoccurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010. The number of significanttrends in major-floodoccurrences was approximatelythe number expecteddue to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variabilityrather than by long-termtrends, with the closest relationshipbetween major-floodoccurrences being with shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Recent increases in anthropogenicgreenhousegas emissions did not producea long-termtrend in the number of flood events or water flow amounts. SOURCES: Not a Lot of People Know That and Journal of Hydrology CHINA DRIVING COAL'S REBOUND IN UNITED STATES Coal's fortunes in the United States are reboundingprimarilydue to China's reemergence as a coal importer,rather than President Donald Trump's policies.China's Paris climate commitments are not slowingits demand for coal. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002210-00005 Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Timothy Puko notes in order to clean up its dirty air, in 2016 China limited the number of days domestic mines could operate and set price controls on coal in areas targetedfor clean-up,resultingin shortfalls as industrial demand took off. This resulted in global pricesfor coal risingbetween 50 and 100 percentsince 2016. China's demand for coal, combined with its politicallylimited domestic supply,resulted in Africa, Russia,and South America shiftingtheir coal exportsfrom Europeto China. As a result,U.S. coal exportsto Europeand every other continent rose to replace supplyformerlyfrom other countries. The impact on U.S. coal company fortunes has been substantial. U.S. coal exports to Europe rose 70 percentfrom the first quarter in 2016, while exportsto Asia rose approximately50 percent.Driven primarilyby the growthin exports,coal productionin the United States has increased 14 percentsince December 2016, and revenue at publiclytraded U.S. coal companies grew 19 percentin the first half of this year comparedwith the same perioda year ago. Simultaneouslywith this, Trump has been removingregulatorybarriers to domestic coal production and use, and the Commerce Department helped negotiate a pact allowing the export of coal to Ukraine, lesseningits dependenceon natural gas from Russia. SOURCE: Wall Street Journal(behindpaywall) RECOMMENDED SITES AND NEWSLETTERS 1000Frolley Bishop Hill Climate Audit CO2 Coalition Climate Etc. Dr. Roy Spencer No Tricks Zone Climate Exam Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow CO2 Science Real Science Wise Energy International Conferences on Climate Change C3 Headlines Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Global Science Report Gelbspan Files Climate in Review, by C. Jeffery Small Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002210-00006 Climate Policy, The Heritage Foundation Global Warming, Cato Institute JoNova, hosted by Joanne Nova Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute GlobalWarming.org Cooler Heads Digest Power for USA Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Master Resource The Climate Bet International Climate Science Coalition Climate Scientists' Register Science and Public Policy Institute Climate Depot by Marc Morano World Climate Report by Dr. Patrick Michaels Biweekly Updates from the Cooler Heads Coalition Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts ICECAP by Joseph D'Aleo Junk Science by Steve Milloy l~l 39'9N~377-4000 3939 North Wilke Road I Arlington Heights! ll I60004I3121377•4000 3939 North Wilke Road I Arlington Heights I IL 160004 ! 3121377-4000 This message was sent to dbast@heartland.org from think@heartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002210-00007 Heartland Institute: H. Sterling Burnett The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Manage Your Subscription SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002210-00008 To: Konkus, John[konkus.john@_E.:P9c.99..\:'.L _____________________________________ _ Bee: Hicks, Hope C. EOP/WHq Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : Popovich, ___ l,,!,1_~~.l~.P._Qr?.QYJQb@IJ.!.D.9.a9.rnL!3-~.ll_._.§tE.:PD~ ift:]~ fef>h-eii"~Be1r@"rireca:coo p]; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : 'Jackie.Stewart@fticonsulting.com[Jackie.Stewart@fticonsulting.com]; Rashid G. Hallaway[rhallaway@hhqventures.com]; Byers, Dan[DByers@USChamber.com]; Love, Kelly A. EOP/WHOi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ] rob.bluey@heritage.org[rob.bluey@heritage.org]; Ginny. Montalbano@heritage.org [Ginny. Montalbano@heritage.org]; stephanie@mcfarlandpr.com[stephanie@mcfarlandpr.com]; 'bndunlop@heritage.org'['bndunlop@heritage.org']; 'pmichaels@cato.org'['pmichaels@cato.org']; 'jlakely@heartland.org'['jlakely@heartland.org']; 'meredith.schultz@aei.org'['meredith.schultz@aei.org']; 'myron.ebell@cei.org'['myron.ebell@cei.org']; : Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : 'll@leonardleo.com'['ll@leonardleo.com']; i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Sent: Tue 10/1 0/201 7 3: 18: 33 PM L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002211-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 3/19/2018 3:57:47 PM FW: Commie enviros and more In a "Special Report" titled "Why Isn't Trump Tweeting This?," Paul Kengor with the American Spectator comments on the fine work of Kevin Mooney, an investigative reporter for Capital Research Center, exposing Russian influence on the U.S. environmental movement: https://spectator.org/why-isnt-trump-tweeting-this/ This is indeed a scandal that ought to put a big dent in the credibility of the global warming alarmist camp's work. Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002212-00001 strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002212-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 11/30/2017 5:32:39 PM Essay defends Susan Crockford's views on polar bears Excellent piece: https://fabiusmaximus.com/20 l 7/11/30/new-study-about-climate-science-debate/ Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002213-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/28/201710:40:14 PM You've got to be kidding! USA Today's new global warming newsletter Sammy Roth is a real cutie, and did he have to stretch that graph of temperatures, or did the CSSR do that for him? Geeze. HIT Dennis Groh. Joe https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017 /l l/28/climate-matters-newsletter-climate-changeglobal-warming/862410001/ Are we doomed? Climate atters newsletter tackles destructive storms, wildfires and climate change The impacts of global climate change have been front and center this year: More destructive storms. Bigger wildfires. Record heat. Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that those changes and many more are being driven by human activities. That's why USA TODAY is launching Climate Matters, a newsletter focused on climate change, energy and the environment. You can si in up here. I'm Sammy Roth, a reporter for USA TODAY, and I'll be writing Climate Matters. Every week, I'll bring you important stories from across the country about the impacts and politics of climate change, the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources and environmental issues like water and public lands. I'll tell you what the White House is up to and focus on the ways that climate change is a much bigger story than one government in one country - a story that affects people's daily lives. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002214-00001 Sammy Roth (Photo: J Omar Ornelas/The Desert Sun, J Omar Ornelas/ The Desert Sun) I'll share my own insightson these topicsfrom my perch in Palm Springs,Calif., where I write about energy and the environment. California's been acting like its own countrylately, acceleratingits shift to solar and wind power while President Trump promotesfossil fuels. But those changes, like the impactsof globalwarming, are being seen everywhere. I'll make sure you don't miss anything important, from rising sea levels on the East Coast, to drought in the Southwest, to extreme storms in the Midwest. Again, you can sign up for Climate Matters here. Enter your email at the link, and the newsletter will arrive in your inbox every Thursday evening, give or take. Questions, comments, ideas? Send me an email at sammy.roth@desertsun.com, or follow me on Twitter @Sammy Roth. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002214-00002 Global average mperatures since 1880, when compared to the long- rm average. I ,I.•. · 11111·1~· I ··11 · SOURCEClimate Science Special Report Ramon Padilla/USA TODAY SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002214-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/28/2017 3: 15:25 PM Harris in Washington Times re the America First Energy Conference Outstanding. Joe h s://www.washin encrgy-market/ ontimes.com/ncws/2017 /nov/27 /how-the-us-can-dominatc-thc-world- How America can dominate the world energy market By Tom Harris - -Monday, November 27, 2017 At first glance, it appeared as if this month's energy and environment conferences in Houston and Bonn were being held in two vastly different universes. At Houston's America First Energy Conference on Nov. 9, leading experts explained that fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas has given us a world vastly more healthy, wealthy and clean than that of our ancestors. The event, organized by the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, called for a rapid expansion of America's hydrocarbon fuel usage to yield even greater benefits for people and the environment. Mainstream media showed little interest and what coverage the event generated was mostly negative. The exact opposite message was broadcast during the United Nations Climate Change Conference that wrapped up recently in Bonn. Conference attendee Marc Morano, publisher of the influential Climatedepot.com, said, "The U.N. climate summit was a bizarro world of condemnation for the use of fossil fuels while living in a dream world by calling for the world to immediately switch to alternative energy sources to avert an alleged climate crisis." The U.N. event was covered uncritically by most of the press, leaving the public with the impression that the science of climate change, and the case against fossil fuels, is a fait accompli. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unlike Heartland's 12 international conferences on climate change, their Houston conference focused primarily on energy, not climate science. However, one session put the lie to the idea that science is settled in favor of the position the U.N. holds dear. University of Delaware climatology professor David Legates showed that the climate models on which the climate scare SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002215-00001 is based consistently predict far greater temperature rises than are observed in the real world. Showing a plot of the output of 101 climate models, Mr. Legates said, "One hundred of those models overpredict current conditions by about a factor of two." Concerning how climate models are "tuned" to give results desired for political purposes, Mr. Legates charged, "This is not science." Rather than "carbon pollution," as Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee labeled carbon dioxide (CO2) in a statement issued by the U.S. Climate Alliance just before traveling to Bonn, our carbon-dioxide emissions are aerial fertilization for plant life. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change told the Houston audience, "The whole of the terrestrial biosphere is reaping incredible benefits from the approximate 40 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution." Efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will result in "reduced agricultural yields, higher food prices and growing food insecurity that will disproportionately burden the poor," concluded Mr. Idso. This would cause "undernourishment and potential starvation of hundreds of millions of persons just a few short decades from now," he said. On June 29, President Trump announced that he is not only focusing on "energy independence," but also "energy dominance." America First Energy Conference keynote speaker Joe Leimkuhler, vice president of drilling for Louisiana-based LLOG Exploration, explained that energy dominance requires meeting all U.S. domestic needs and exporting at a level where America can influence the world market. Mr. Leimkuhler showed that, given the right circumstances, Mr. Trump's goal is indeed achievable. If, that is, current development trends continue and the president's America First Energy Plan is allowed to unfold without being sabotaged by the climate scare. Although the U.S. currently imports more oil that it produces, Mr. Leimkuhler told the audience in Houston that it need not stay that way. America could become a net exporter of oil within five years and could dominate oil internationally ifrecent estimates of the 135 billion barrels more oil reserves in the Permian Basin that spans West Texas and southeastern New Mexico turn out to be correct. Mr. Leimkuhler explained that the U.S. is the largest natural gas producer and consumer in the world, has the lowest cost, and meets all domestic demand. However, despite recent growth in production due to fracking, the U.S. still only has 4 percent of the world's reserves. To dominate natural gas, American liquified natural gas exports would have to increase 20-fold from 2016 levels. Sustaining such a level of exports would require a considerable increase in reserves, a development that, while possible, is highly uncertain. Coal is another story entirely. America has the world's largest coal reserves a 381-year supply at current national usage rates. Not surprisingly, 100 percent of U.S. coal demand is met by domestic supply. Asia is a huge market for coal, and America could easily dominate the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002215-00002 international power plant coal supply if sufficient export facilities were available. But thanks largely to the climate scare contributing to the blocking of construction of new American coal export facilities, the U.S. exports no more coal than Poland. Due to limited supply of uranium, dominating the world conventional nuclear power market is not realistic for America, Mr. Leimkuhler said. Similarly, dominating in hydroelectric power exports is a non-starter due to the lack of acceptable new dam sites. Mr. Leimkuhler wrapped up his talk by showing the Houston audience that trying to dominate world wind and solar energy markets is a fool's errand. These sources are "costly, inefficient," and pose serious reliability and integration issues "that results in the actual power supplied equal to only a fraction of the "name plate capacity," he said. Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp summed up the opportunity facing the U.S.: "For too long, America's future has been controlled by radicals who don't want to see us grow and prosper. But things are different now. We can take the lead in powering the world and growing our economy. We can continue guiding the protection of Earth's air, land and water." "Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002215-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/28/2017 2:53:24 PM Dayaratna: Ending the war on fossil fuels would produce huge "peace dividend" - Washington Times I've been hoping someone would write a piece like this for a long time! Joe https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017 /nov/27 /war-on-fossil-fuels-needs-to-be-ended/ For a huge 'peace dividend,' end the war on fossil fuels By Kevin Dayaratna - - Monday, November 27, 2017 From making our morning coffee to riding the D.C. Metro, and whether for powering the computer screen or printing the paper which you are reading right now, energy is an essential part of our lives and ubiquitous in today's economy. Fortunately, Americans have a tremendous amount of accessible energy here at home, in good ol' American soil. The Institute for Energy Research estimates that we Americans sit atop 1.3 trillion barrels of recoverable shale oil and more than 2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas. President Trump has indicated the desire to let U.S. energy producers (and consumers) more readily tap into this vast supply. He will meet resistance from those who insist on curbing the use of these so-called "fossil fuels," claiming they contribute significantly to the threat of global warmmg. The anti-fossil fuel warriors were ascendant during the Obama years. Policymakers introduced a number of domestic proposals - such as the Waxman-Markey bill and the EPA' s Clean Power Plan - to reduce consumption of these fuels. His administration also signed on to international pacts, such as the Paris agreement, with the same goal. What these warriors continually overlooked was the collateral damage their policies would SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002216-00001 inflict on the U.S. economy. It is staggering. At The Heritage Foundation, our analysis found that, by 2035, participation in the Paris agreement would produce an aggregate loss of $2.5 trillion in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). That change works out to $20,000 of lost income for a typical family of four. Moreover, the changes in energy production necessitated by the pact would significantly boost household electricity expenditures. What benefits would we gain in return for these costs? Virtually none. Our analyses showed temperature mitigation ofless than 0.2 degrees Celsius and a reduction ofless than 2 centimeters in sea level rise by the end of the century. Why would so little climate progress be so expensive? Because the goal of the war on fossil fuels has always been to make them more expensive. Fossil fuels are, after all, the least expensive and most efficient form of energy currently available. The only way to keep people from using them is to artificially increase their price. What would happen if Mr. Trump were to enable us to take advantage of the vast resources here at home? Energy prices would fall, and economic growth would accelerate. Tapping into new pockets of shale oil and gas would create new jobs for the geologists, mathematicians, data scientists, engineers and field workers directly associated with the fracking process. Local business near the production fields would also benefit directly from the increased employment and paychecks of frackers. The indirect benefits are as widespread as they are massive. As business energy costs decline, employers have more money to invest in workers - yielding bigger paychecks, better benefits and more jobs. Our most recent analysis estimates that if America were to stop the war on fossil fuels, it would increase GDP as much as $2.4 trillion by 2035 - pretty much the exact opposite of the results produced under the Paris pact. Wage improvements and cost savings of this magnitude would be a godsend for families struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, the effect on global temperatures would be negligible. Mr. Trump has already taken some steps in the right direction. His Energy Independence Executive Order deemed federal lands to be viable for fracking. Although there have been questions about the safety of fracking, a recent study by the EPA found that hydraulic fracturing poses no major health risks. Because the American system of justice is so strong, proper enforcement of contract rights and the rule of law are the norm. Those who cause damage are held accountable, ensuring that the best and safest drilling techniques will prevail in extracting these resources. Policymakers have a moral obligation to end the war on fossil fuels. Doing so will unleash American talent and ingenuity and grow the economy for years to come. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002216-00002 A senior statistician and research programmer in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, Kevin Dayaratna specializes in tax, energy and health policy issues. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002216-00003 From: Joseph Bast Thur 10/26/2017 1:35:24 PM This is what victory looks like: The Interior Department Scrubs Climate Change From Its Strategic Plan Sent: Subject: https ://www.thenation.com/ article/interior-department-scrubs-climate-change-from-its-strategicplan/ Exclusive: The Interior Department Scrubs Climate Change From Its Strategic Plan A leaked draft of a five-year plan reveals how the DOI will prioritize "energy dominance" over conservation. By Adam Federman In the next five years, millions of acres of America's public lands and waters, including some national monuments and relatively pristine coastal regions, could be auctioned off for oil and gas development, with little thought for environmental consequences. That's according to a leaked draft, obtained by The Nation, of the Department of the Interior's strategic vision: It states that the DOI is committed to achieving "American energy dominance" through the exploitation of "vast amounts" of untapped energy reserves on public lands. Alarmingly, the policy blueprint-a 50-page document-does not once mention climate change or climate science. That's a clear departure from current policy: The previous plan, covering 2014-18, referred to climate change 46 times and explicitly stated that the department was committed to improving resilience in those communities most directly affected by global warming. Interior's new strategic plan fits within a broader effort by the Trump administration to marginalize climate-science research. Last week the Environmental Protection Agency abruptly withdrew two of its scientists and a contractor from a conference in Rhode Island, where they were due to address the impacts of climate change on coastal waters. EPA websites have also been scrubbed of most references to climate change. At Interior and the Department of Energy, scientists have been discouraged from referring to climate change in grant proposals or press releases. Earlier this month Joel Clement, a top policy adviser and climate scientist at DOI, resig ed after being transferred to an accounting position, where he was assigned to collect royalties from the oil and gas industry. Clement, who had spoken out about the impacts of climate change on Native American communities in Alaska, alleges that his reassignment was politically motivated. Understanding the threat of climate change had been an integral part of the Interior Department's mission, said Elizabeth Klein, who served as associate deputy secretary at Interior from 2012 to 2017 and was involved in drafting the earlier strategic plan. That document sought to address a SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002217-00001 number of the risks associated with climate change, including drought, sea-level rise, and severe flooding. One section referred specifically to the need for more research on erosion along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, which are particularly vulnerable to hurricanes. To completely ignore climate risks, Klein said, is an abdication oflnterior's responsibility as a manager and steward of the nation's public lands. "It's yet another example of an unfortunate regression," she said. While disregarding climate change, the 2018-2022 strategic plan places a premium on facilitating oil and gas development. It calls for speeding up the processing of parcels nominated for oil and gas leasing on public lands. It establishes an Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting to facilitate on- and -offshore leasing, and aims to reduce the time it takes to greenlight energy projects on Native land by 50 percent. The department is also seeking to speed up the application process for drilling permits, even though industry is currently sitting on thousands of approved permits. "It is bewildering that the agency would prioritize approving more permits-at the inevitable expense of your environmental responsibilities-when companies have plenty and appear to be simply stockpiling them," wrote Representative Raul Grijalva, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, in an April letter to the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management. Instead of the protection of landscapes and ecosystems, the new report emphasizes Interior's role in policing the US-Mexico border. Not surprisingly, one of the DOI's key performance indicators for the next five years will be the number of acres of public lands made available for oil and natural-gas leasing. Interior's role in promoting renewable-energy development largely goes unmentioned. The new plan also has little to say about conservation, a word mentioned 74 times in the previous strategy blueprint and only 25 times in the new version. Instead of the protection of landscapes and ecosystems, the new report emphasizes Interior's role in policing the US-Mexico border. The department manages nearly half of the southern border region, the report notes, as well as the third-largest number of law-enforcement officers in the executive branch. It intends to deploy them "to decrease illegal immigration and marijuana smuggling on DOI managed public lands." In his resignation letter, Clement pointed to the fact that Americans are increasingly confronting the realities of climate change in their daily lives, whether it's families fleeing the devastation of a hurricane, businesses in coastal communities forced to relocate because of rising sea levels and coastal erosion, or farmers grappling with "floods of biblical proportions." "If the Trump administration continues to try to silence experts in science, health and other fields," Clement warned, "many more Americans, and the natural ecosystems upon which they depend, will be put at risk." Adam Federman is a reporting fellow with the Investigative Fund at the Nation rnstitute. He is the author of Fasting and Feasting: l7ie U(e o(Vi.-dona v Food Writer Patience Gr v. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002217 -00002 l> wrote: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/epa-evaluating-red-teams-to-challenge-climate-sciencedespitehurricanes/article/2634497?utm medium=email&utm campaign=Examiner+ Today&utm source=StructureCMS EPA evaluating 'red teams' to challenge SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002220-00003 climate science despite hurricanes The Trump administration is looking to create a "red team" to challenge the accepted science on climate change and the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the Earth's temperature, but there is no timeline on when that exercise will occur even though it is "very important," according to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt. The EPA administrator sat down with the Washington Examiner for an interview that included discussion of the proposed red team-blue team process that he says will open up a dialogue over the science behind global warming to see what is true and what is not. "The red team-blue team is still being evaluated," Pruitt said. "I think it's very, very important. I think the American people deserve an open, honest dialogue about what do we know, what don't we know with respect to CO2 and its impact." The Trump administration has been criticized in recent weeks by environmentalists and others for ignoring the effects of manmade global warming in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Harvey. Although climate scientists are careful not to equate weather with global warming, they do say that the increased intensity of the storms is a result of a warmer planet. But the Trump administration feels a need to test that. The red team/blue team process Pruitt wants to set up has been widely used by the military to test assumptions when it comes to an enemy's wartime capability. A red team would challenge the assumptions of the blue team. In the case of climate change, the red team would include scientists known for their skepticism of the science held by the majority of climate scientists who say human activity is causing the Earth's temperature to rise and will have disastrous consequences unless abated. The Heartland Institute, which actively challenges U.N. climate change findings that the broader scientific community accepts, has been tapped by the Trump administration to recommend who should staff the red team. But Pruitt wouldn't give a timeframe for when the exercise would begin. "As far as the timing, that has not been determined. But I think it's important for the American people to be able to consume that, to see that, to participate in that," he said. "I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue," Pruitt said. A number of scientists have come out against using the red team approach. They fear the exercise will confuse the public by suggesting that the science on climate change is not settled, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002220-00004 when it is. Christine Todd Whitman, the former EPA chief under President George W. Bush, recently said Pruitt's red team exercise is the wrong approach. "The red-team approach makes sense in the military and in consumer and technology companies, where assumptions about enemy strategy or a competitor's plans are rooted in unknowable human choices," Whitman said in New York Times op-ed published Sept. 8. "But the basic physics of the climate are well understood. Burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. There is no debate about that," she said. "The link is as certain as the link between smoking and cancer." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002220-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 9/15/2017 7:58:50 PM EPA evaluating 'red teams' to challenge climate science despite hurricanes http://www. washingtonexaminer .com/ epa-evaluating-red-teams-to-challenge-climate-sciencedespi tehurricanes/article/2634497?utm medium=email&utm campaign=Examiner+Today&utm source=StructureCM~ EPA evaluating 'red teams' to challenge climate science despite hurricanes The Trump administration is looking to create a "red team" to challenge the accepted science on climate change and the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the Earth's temperature, but there is no timeline on when that exercise will occur even though it is "very important," according to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt. The EPA administrator sat down with the Washington Examiner for an interview that included discussion of the proposed red team-blue team process that he says will open up a dialogue over the science behind global warming to see what is true and what is not. "The red team-blue team is still being evaluated," Pruitt said. "I think it's very, very important. I think the American people deserve an open, honest dialogue about what do we know, what don't we know with respect to CO2 and its impact." The Trump administration has been criticized in recent weeks by environmentalists and others for ignoring the effects of manmade global warming in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Harvey. Although climate scientists are careful not to equate weather with global warming, they do say that the increased intensity of the storms is a result of a warmer planet. But the Trump administration feels a need to test that. The red team/blue team process Pruitt wants to set up has been widely used by the military to test assumptions when it comes to an enemy's wartime capability. A red team would challenge the assumptions of the blue team. In the case of climate change, the red team would include scientists known for their skepticism of the science held by the majority of climate scientists who say human activity is causing the Earth's temperature to rise and will have disastrous consequences unless abated. The Heartland Institute, which actively challenges U.N. climate change findings that the broader scientific community accepts, has been tapped by the Trump administration to recommend who SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002221-00001 should staff the red team. But Pruitt wouldn't give a timeframe for when the exercise would begin. "As far as the timing, that has not been determined. But I think it's important for the American people to be able to consume that, to see that, to participate in that," he said. "I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue," Pruitt said. A number of scientists have come out against using the red team approach. They fear the exercise will confuse the public by suggesting that the science on climate change is not settled, when it is. Christine Todd Whitman, the former EPA chief under President George W. Bush, recently said Pruitt's red team exercise is the wrong approach. "The red-team approach makes sense in the military and in consumer and technology companies, where assumptions about enemy strategy or a competitor's plans are rooted in unknowable human choices," Whitman said in New York Times op-ed published Sept. 8. "But the basic physics of the climate are well understood. Burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. There is no debate about that," she said. "The link is as certain as the link between smoking and cancer." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002221-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 9/15/2017 3:54:02 PM WSJ: Wind Power Wins Converts in Rural USA HIT Rael Isaac. I missed this when it appeared 9 days ago. I hope some of you with expertise in wind power can write a reply? When challenged on the claim highlighted in the article, below, Judi Walsh, the "news editor, newsroom standards" person for the WSJ replied, The Journal reviewed the data and the study extensively with Lazard during reporting. Lazard's study of the unsubsidized leveled costs of various energy sources shows that wind is cheaper than natural gas and coal when looked at over the life of a generating facility and on an unsubsidized basis. Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Judi Walsh NEWS EDITOR, NEWSROOM STANDARDS The Wall Street Journal Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002222-00001 Wind Power Wins Converts in Rural U.S. Economic impact of wind farms is changing the political dynamics of renewable energy By Erin Ailworth Sept. 6, 2017 8:00 a.m. ET 197 COMMENTS I 2017-09-06T12:00:00.000Z FOWLER, Ind.PLC does big business harvesting energy in and around this farm town. But it isn't oil and gas-it's wind. Hundreds of wind turbines ring Fowler, their white towers rising for miles amid the goldentipped cornfields and leafy soybean plants blanketing much of Benton County, pop. 8,650. More than half of the county's 560 turbines are operated by BP, which has three wind farms here. "Turbines as far as you can see," said Ryan Linzner, who manages the BP wind farms. Wind developers have made $17 million in payments to the county and have spent $33 million on roads, a boon for an economically struggling community that about a decade earlier considered hosting a waste dump to generate jobs and government revenue. The wind farms took hundreds of construction workers to build, and created 110 permanent jobs, mostly wind technicians-in charge of servicing and maintaining wind turbines-who, according to federal data, earn about $51,500 a year in Indiana. "Benton County didn't see the recession until 2011," said the county commission's president, Bryan Berry, who has three turbines on his farmland. "The wind industry helped keep things open." As wind becomes a bigger part of the U.S. electricity mix, it is becoming an economic force in rural communities such as Fowler, a development that is changing the political conversation around renewable energy in many parts of the U.S. Wind supplied just over 6% of the country's electricity last year, and the industry employed close to 102,000 people-nearly double the number working in coal mining, according to federal data. President Donald Trump campaigned in part on reviving the U.S. coal industry, and has been critical of renewable-energy subsidies. But heavily Republican states such as Indiana, Iowa, Texas and Wyoming have embraced wind for the work and revenue it brings. Nearly 90% of the wind capacity brought online in 2016 was in states that voted for Mr. Trump, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002222-00002 In the process, the industry has developed powerful allies, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who presided over a wind-turbine boom as governor of Texas, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee. While some in Congress have argued against the federal subsidies that wind energy receives, Mr. Grassley said that support helped build an industry that creates jobs and lowers the nation's need for foreign oil. "It helps us to be energy independent," he said, adding that wind's growing competitiveness with traditional energy sources has diminished the need for wind tax credits, which are being phased out. BP's Fowler Ridge Wind Farm in Fowler, Ind. Photo: David Kasnic for The Wall Street Journal Excluding subsidies, it now costs about $47 per megawatt hour to generate electricity from wind in North America over the full lifetime of a facility, compared with $63 for natural gas and $102 for coal, according to a 2016 analysis by Lazard Ltd. Wind now produces more than 36% oflowa's electricity, nearly 7 gigawatts of capacity in all, second only to Texas' 21 gigawatts. The falling price of wind power, along with its environmental benefits, helped persuade companies such as Faccbook Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google to open data centers in the state, said Debi Durham, director of the Iowa Economic Development Authority. "We use this wind portfolio, this renewable portfolio, as a calling card when we are talking to companies," she said. Indiana is an up-and-coming wind competitor, with nearly 2 gigawatts of wind capacity. More than half that capacity is in Benton County, where there is roughly one turbine for every 15 residents. Turbines started sprouting in Benton a decade ago, a few years after a landfill project proved unpopular in 2004. Travis Nolan, a technician, at Meadow Lake Wind Farm in Chalmers, Ind. Photo: David Kasnic for The Wall Street Journal "When renewable energy came around, it was like, well, this isn't even close to a dump," said Benton County Economic Development Director Paul Jackson. In addition to BP, which owns wind farms here with Dominion Energy Inc. and Sempra Energy , the area's wind developers include Orion Energy Group LLC, Pattern Energy Group Inc., and the North American subsidiary of Elcctricitc de France SA's EDF Energies Nouvelles. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002222-00003 Electricity produced by Pattern's farm is bought by Amazon Web Services Inc., a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc. The wind boom has allowed Mike Kidwell, a Fowler native, to stop commuting about 35 miles to a Subaru plant in Lafayette, Ind., where he worked for 18 years. He initially found a job in Fowler as a wind technician for Vestas Wind Systems AS, a Danish wind company, and is now vice president of operations at Auxilius Heavy Industries, a Fowlerbased business that provides crews to service wind farms. "I always said if I could find something that paid good at home, I would come back," said Mr. Kidwell, 47 years old. Three of his six children-sons Nick, Brandon and Chris-work with him at Auxilius. Some other counties are still debating whether wind is right for them, concerned that the turbines are unsightly and could spook lucrative residential development as suburbs sprawl from Lafayette and Indianapolis. But in Benton County, the turbines are now a fact of life. Farmer Bruce Buchanan, who has 14 turbines spinning amid his com and soybean crops, said wind payments are helping him finance needed improvements, such as fixing drainage issues. His wife, Virginia, still hasn't gotten used to the turbines, however, finding them unattractive and odd. "They have them in California," she said. "I never thought of us having them here." Copyright ©2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002222-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 9/14/2017 7:40:30 PM More E&E News lies .... Friends, One more time ... Ed Berry asked me to let you all know that Scott Waldman lied when he claimed, "on his Twitter account, [Berry] has called Islam "a death cult" and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters." Says Ed, I have never said or written such a statement, because I do not believe that statement. Clearly, Scott wants to eliminate from consideration those who he thinks may help stop the climate change nonsense. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002223-00001 -----Original Message----From: "Joseph Bast" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:27am To: Subject: E&E News lies and lies and lies .... Friends, Below is a fake news story by Scott Walden, an E&E News "reporter," titled "The skeptics who could snag science adviser slots." The article ends with some good quotations from Steve Milloy, but before that, this fake reporter writes, The Heartland Institute - a Chicago-based free-market think tank that pushes alternative climate science - nominated many of the current prospects. Heartland did not "nominate" anyone to any advisory committee. I only encouraged people to apply, virtually everyone nominated themselves, I did not nominate a single person, and no one else affiliated with Heartland nominated anyone. Jim Lakely has asked the reporter to retract this statement. Ed Berry is cited as the source of the reporter's lie: Berry, who confirmed that he and a number of other skeptics were nominated by Heartland, said he wants to use his position on the board to show that humans barely contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which he claimed are mostly driven by natural factors. Ed has asked the reporter to revise this statement. Ed thought he heard me say, at our first Red Team briefing, that Heartland had nominated him and others to advisory panels. In fact, I only provided to the administration a list of some 200 people I believe are credible experts on climate change. One could say I "endorsed" them but I did not "nominate" anyone for anything. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002223-00002 And by the by, the inference that David Legates is somehow funded by Koch Industries Inc. is just despicable. David is not, and neither is The Heartland Institute, not directly or indirectly or three steps removed. In a better world, this libel would be punished and this fake "reporter" would be fired. Alas, our foes have no integrity, and the inmates run the asylum. Joe Joseph L. Bast CEO The Heartland Institute EPA The skeptics who could snag science adviser slots Published: Thursday, September 14, 2017 Climate skeptics may soon join a key science advisory panel at U.S. EPA. A number of people who reject the findings of mainstream climate science are being considered by the Trump administration for spots on EPA's Science Advisory Board, a voluntary but influential panel that reviews science used in environmental regulations. At least one nominee hopes to use a position on the board to challenge the science undergirding many environmental regulations. One has said in a statement that the world must "abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade." Another compared people concerned about climate change to "Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts." EPA has submitted 132 == for public comment as possible members of the panel. About a dozen of them have made comments rejecting mainstream climate science. Many have connections to the fossil fuel industry or conservative think tanks, and some have received funding to attack the findings of mainstream scientists that humans are warming the globe at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels. The selection of any of those researchers would be the beginning of a very different advisory board that would bear the hallmark of the Trump administration's position on climate change, said Steve Milloy, an attorney and longtime EPA foe who worked on President Trump's transition team for the agency. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002223-00003 "Had some other Republican won the presidency and a swamp creature taken over the EPA, this would not be happening," he said, "but thank God for Scott Pruitt that he's got the courage to do this." The Heartland Institute - a Chicago-based free-market think tank that pushes alternative climate science - nominated many of the current prospects. Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said in an email: "We applaud any effort by Administrator Pruitt to bring qualified non-alarmist scientists onto the EPA's advisory boards. There is a vigorous debate over the causes and consequences of climate change, and it's vital that EPA acknowledge that fact and have a more balanced approach to the agency's rule-making." The long list of nominees - identified by EPA staff members who oversee the advisory board - also includes mainstream climate scientists who have extensive experience working with the United Nations and EPA on climate change. Former top Obama EPA science official Paul Anastas made the list. The deadline for public comment is set to expire Sept. 28. After that, EPA boss Pruitt will have final approval on the candidates. The board has 48 member slots, 15 of which expire at the end of the month. It's not clear how many positions will be filled. The SAB, created in 1978, is tasked with "independent advice and peer review on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to the EPA's Administrator." An EPA spokesman has said the agency wants industry to have a greater role than it has had previously in evaluating the science used by EPA to craft regulations. Traditionally, most of the SAB members are from academia, though some have also come from industry and environmental groups. The SAB is essential to the functioning of EPA because it is chartered by law to ensure the agency is using the best available science for regulations, said Peter Thorne, the board's current chairman and director of the Environmental Health Sciences Research Center at the University of Iowa. He said the SAB has a wide range of tasks that touch on almost every aspect of EPA's functioning. He said it's not just EPA that draws on its work - it's also state governments, nongovernmental organizations and private companies. "The EPA Science Advisory Board needs to have people who are well-versed in the science that underlies the decisions that EPA makes, so if there are people who end up on the board who have views that are not grounded in solid science, then that is a problem," Thorne said. Pruitt's prospects Here are some of the skeptical nominees under consideration: Joseph D'Aleo, a certified consultant meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel: He has run climate skeptic websites and has appeared as a speaker at Heartland conferences. D'Aleo said his priority on the board would be attacking the endangerment finding, the legally binding document that holds that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases harm human health and must be regulated by the executive branch. He said he wants to challenge the finding because it could otherwise be used later to build back Obama-era environmental regulations. "We're going to push for reconsideration, start from scratch and put together the best science," he said. "If CO2 is not a serious pollutant, let's focus the attention of the EPA on other issues." Edwin Berry, a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist: He has funded his own climate research SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002223-00004 and says human carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change. He has compared those who believe in human-caused climate change to "Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps." On his Twitter account, he has called Islam "a death cult" and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters. Berry, who confirmed that he and a number of other skeptics were nominated by Heartland, said he wants to use his position on the board to show that humans barely contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which he claimed are mostly driven by natural factors. "Let's get over this whole thing about climate change being an important thing, because in fact we humans have a negligible impact on climate," he said. "And ifwe had the Paris Agreement and everything else, it wouldn't do any good anyway." Alan Carlin, a retired EPA employee who is affiliated with Heartland: He fought the agency's crafting of the endangerment finding. Carlin, an economist, was at the center of a political firestorm under Obama after he produced a widely criticized 93-page report comprising cherry-picked scientific data and blog entries concluding that regulating carbon dioxide was "the worst mistake that EPA has ever made." Kevin Dayaratna, a statistician at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His report was cited by Trump as a reason to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. It claimed that the agreement could shrink U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 trillion within two decades (though Trump stated the impact as coming within a decade). The report was criticized by some as being misleading, because that amount is less than 1 percent of the aggregate GDP over that period and the report did not account for the cost of taking no climate change action. Dayaratna was invited to attend Trump's withdrawal announcement in June in the White House Rose Garden. Craig ldso, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute: He has researched the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. His work has centered on highlighting how increased carbon dioxide will benefit plants. Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian environmental think tank: His organization handed out leaflets at a climate protest this year in Washington, D.C., that said, "CO2 is not the 'control knob' of the climate." He also co-founded Climate Exit, or "Clexit," which criticized the science behind the Paris climate agreement and holds that spiking levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide benefit the Earth. "The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade," the group stated in its founding statement. "Man does not and cannot control the climate." Gordon Fulks, a physicist and adviser to the Cascade Policy Institute, an Oregon-based libertarian think tank: He has denied that net sea ice melt is occurring and that the Earth is warming. He has said those who express concern about climate change are like a "societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus." Anthony Lupo, another founding member of Clexit: He has received support from the Heartland Institute and helped in the unsuccessful fight against the endangerment finding in court. Leighton Steward, a former energy company executive and a founder of groups that promote the rise of carbon dioxide as a benefit: He has also encouraged the United States to drop out of the Paris climate accord and says that natural warming is raising the temperature of the Earth. David Legates, a professor of climatology at the University of Delaware: He has denied that humancaused climate change could have catastrophic consequences and has co-authored climate research claiming polar bears are not harmed by human-caused climate change that was quietly funded, at least in part, by Koch Industries Inc. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002223-00005 Critics want to boot EPA 'cronies' Republican lawmakers and other conservatives have long wanted to revamp the board. House Republicans have repeatedly tried to increase industry's role on the board, and this year they passed a perennial bill, the "Science Advisory Board Reform Act." Some conservative lawmakers have accused the board of being politically biased. Critics of the legislation say it's designed to make it harder for academics to serve on the board. Pruitt seems determined to leave his mark on EPA's advisory boards. In April, EPA dismissed about half of the 18 members of its Board of Scientific Counselors, just weeks after they had been told that they would be appointed to a second term -which is generally the practice. That board is largely tasked with technical and management reviews of EPA research programs. By contrast, the SAB has a more significant role: It was created by law and evaluates science that informs regulations, including those that affect the fossil fuel industry. EPA did not respond to requests for comment for this story. The Trump transition team at EPA recommended a complete reworking of all of its science advisory boards, and this is part of that process, Milloy said. He added that he expects the panel's composition will change even more as additional spots open and Pruitt can stamp it with his influence. And while think tanks have typically been excluded from the SAB, Milloy said, he expects that will now change. Milloy accused the panels of being rubber stamps and said they should be "reconstituted" because they lean toward environmentalism and liberal politics. "They're cronies of EPA, they fall in line, they do what EPA wants," he said. "It's extraordinarily rare that they dare to question the EPA and, if they do, then the EPA just ignores them. If they're not rubber stamps, then they're useless." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002223-00006 From: Joseph Bast Sent: Wed 9/13/2017 10:26:57 PM Subject: Former NASA GISS Scientist: 'NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down' Wow, this is really good! Joe From: Marc Morano [mailto:j Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:32 PM , To: Subject: Former Colleague of Hansen, Schmidt turns on them! - Former NASA GISS Scientist: 'NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down' Check out Thresher's credentials! http://columbiaphd. orq/RealCI imatoloqists/ AboutUs/index. html#Thresher http://columbiaphd.org/RealClimatoloqists/Articles/2017 /09/08/Bridenstine Climate Scientists Are Not Noble Stop Paying Them/inde> He rips Hansen and Schmidt: "Physicists and mathematicians who couldn't make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn't make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science." h ://www.climatede ot.com/2017 /09/13/former-nasa- iss-scientist-nasa- iss-is-a-monument-to-badscience-that-truly-should-be-torn-down/ Former NASA GISS Scientist: 'NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002224-00001 truly should be torn down' Read the Full Article ~ Climate scientist Dr. Duane Thresher: "Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson. I know from working there for 7 years that NASA GISS has almost been defunded several times in its life anyway. It's a small group over a restaurant (Tom's Restaurant from the TV comedy Seinfeld!) in New York City, nowhere near any other major NASA facility. Just the dedicated data link to the nearest NASA facility, GSFC in Maryland, is a big expense. GISS is the Goddard Institute for SPACE Studies. If you don't need a rocket to get to it, it's not space." Thresher rips former colleagues: "Physicists and mathematicians who couldn't make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn't make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science." "NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down." By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 13, 2017 4:51 PM nter opportunists, carpetbaggers, the corrupt, the ignoble. Physicists and mathematicians who couldn't make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn't make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002224-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 9/13/2017 8:31:06 PM Nominate yourself to be an IPCC reviewer! HIT Richard Tren: http://www.g lobalchange .gov/notices This is an Open Call. All registered users can nominate U.S. citizens and permanent lawful residents to be considered by the IPCC Working Group Bureaux [sic] responsible for respective contributions to the AR6. The USGCRP nominations system for this process will be disabled on Tuesday, 17 October 2017, and a nominations package transmitted on behalf of the U.S. IPCC Focal Point on 22 October. The IPCC Secretariat will issue appointment memos in February 2018. Travel around the world! See new places! Maybe even win a Nobel Prize! Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377 -4000 Email jbast@iJheartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002225-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002225-00002 From: Joseph Bast Sent: Tue 2/20/2018 9:39:44 PM Subject: Listening Sessions: Repealing the Clean Power Plan From the White House .... FYI-in case you have activists in these key regions this month and next month ..... The first CPP hearing starts tomorrow. Please direct any questions to Stephen Gordon, his cell is IEx. 6 - Personal Privacy ~e will be on the ground at the hearings. i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Listening Sessions: Repealing the Clean Power Plan • • • Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 Time: 10 a.m. until 8 p.m., Central Standard Time (CST) Location: U.S. Department of Agriculture Beacon Complex, 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64133 San Francisco Listening Session • • • Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 Time: 8:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST) Location: San Francisco Main Library, Koret Auditorium, 30 Grove Street entrance, San Francisco, California 94102 Gillette Listening Session • • • Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Time: 9 a.m. until 8 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) Location: Gillette College Technical Education Center, 3251 South 4-J Road, Gillette, Wyoming 82718 Elizabeth Tate Bennett Associate Administrator for Public Engagement & Environmental Education Office of the Administrator SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002226-00001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-1460 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002226-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 2/20/2018 8:39:31 PM Epidemiology standards petition transmitted to White House Excellent work by Steve Milloy, attached. Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002227-00001 I February 20, 2018 President Donald J. Trump The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C.20500 Re: Petition for Federal Standards to Stop Overregulation Based on Junk Epidemiology Dear President Trump, I am submitting this petition under the First Amendment right to petition the federal government to redress grievances. I request that you issue Executive branch-wide standards for the use of epidemiology studies by regulatory agencies. An alternative request is that you direct regulatory agencies to issue their own such standards via public notice and comment. Pending the issuance of such standards, regulatory agencies should be ordered to suspend all use of epidemiology studies pending review under the new standards. This petition is consistent with your initiative to reduce overregulation that hurts the economy without providing commensurate or even any benefit. Just one example of the significance of the problem of junk epidemiology is President Obama's key war-on-coal regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As you know, these rules were responsible for destroying about 94% of the market value of the coal industry and killing many thousands of coal industry jobs during the period 2011-1016 without providing any health, environmental or economic benefits whatsoever. The rules in question were "justified" on the basis of about $600 million worth of EPA-funded epidemiologic studies. These studies relied on secret data, and were either poorly or even fraudulently conducted and reviewed. You justifiably complain about "fake news." This petition would go a long way toward preventing the "fake science" that has been unjustifiably harming our economy and standard of living for decades. Background Epidemiology is the statistical study of the incidence of disease in human populations. Importantly, epidemiology is merely a branch of statistics; it is not Page 1 of 4 i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy I l·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002228-00001 science. Epidemiology does not provide biological or medical explanations (i.e., physical plausibility) for its purported results. Epidemiology's statistical nature is most useful when looking for high rates of rare disease in a population. The classic examples of properly applied epidemiology are food poisoning incidents and the link between heavy smoking and lung cancer. Unfortunately, however, overzealous regulatory agencies have been disregarding the limitations of epidemiology for almost 30 years. They often pretend that epidemiology is a complete science, not merely statistics. They often improperly use epidemiology to study low rates of common diseases. The data used in epidemiology studies is often of such poor quality that epidemiologists refuse to share their data with independent researchers for purposes of replicating and verifying results, a tradition fundamental to the scientific method. In the case of EPA's war-on-coal rules, EPA-funded researchers have been hiding data from public review for more than 20 years- even defying the request of EPA's own statutorily mandated science advisory board and Congressional subpoena for the data. The abuse of epidemiology by federal regulatory agencies can be exemplified to laymen by comparing the number of deaths attributed to smoking against the number of deaths attributed to blue-sky clean air. The Department of Health and Human Services claims that smoking kills about 440,000 people per year. But the Obama EPA claimed that fine particulate matter (soot and dust called "PM2.s")in everyday blue-sky outdoor air kills 570,000 per year. So, smoking kills 440,000 while blue-sky outdoor air kills almost 30 percent more on an annual basis? One can easily understand why the EPA-funded epidemiologists have been hiding their data for 20-plus years. Current Epidemiologic Standards in the Federal Government The first effort to issue standards for interpreting epidemiology studies was articulated by famed British epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill in 1965. Hill almost uncannily foresaw the most common abuse of epidemiology we see todayi.e., inappropriate reliance on weak statistical correlations (also called "weak associations") that likely reflect only poor data quality or chance, versus meaningful results. The adage "correlation is not causation" should come to mind here. Not only is the adage true, but also weak correlations (or weak associations) never portend causation. Weak associations are just meaningless, statistical noise. There is not a single example in the scientific literature of a weak association epidemiology study whose reported association turned out to be scientifically valid. Page 2 of 4 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002228-00002 The Obama EPA used this statistical noise to unjustifiably wreak havoc on the coal industry. While Hill's criteria do appear in some agency guidance documents concerning the use and interpretation of epidemiology, they uniformly omit Hill's warning about the unreliability of weak associations. As a consequence, regulatory-happy federal agencies often disregard Hill's standards and misinterpret statistical noise as causeand-effect relationships in order to justify their ( over)regulatory agendas. Though the federal courts have received some guidance on the interpretation of epidemiology from the National Academy of Sciences and an international standards group (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation or "GRADE")has issued some standards for interpreting epidemiology studies, federal regulatory agencies have remained oblivious and their misuse and abuse of epidemiology is ongoing. Congress has also tried to rein in the abuse of epidemiology. The House-passed HONESTAct would require that epidemiologic data relied on by EPA be made available to the public for purposes of verification and study replication. Although the bill has passed the past three House sessions, it has been stranded in a Senate that requires 60 votes to pass a bill. The Lack of Epidemiology Standards Threatens Efforts to Reduce Overregulation It is a safe bet that virtually all epidemiology-based federal regulatory efforts over the past 25 years or so may be considered as "fake science" or "junk science." This is because federal agencies, especially the EPA, have taken actions or issued warnings or regulations based on the statistical noise that is weak association epidemiology. This "fake science" should be held up to new robust federal epidemiology standards, and then validated or discarded based on its actual merits. Otherwise any deregulatory agenda is at severe risk of failure or rollback. Consider the EPA's proposed repeal of the Obama war-on-coal rule known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Although the CPP is ostensibly a rule addressing greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama EPA actually justified the rule on the basis that reduced coal plant greenhouse gas emissions would necessarily mean reduced emissions of the afore-mentioned PM2.sfrom coal plants. As the Obama EPA had determined (by secret science-based weak association epidemiology) that PM2.swas associated with thousands of premature deaths annually ( each valued by EPA via junk economics at about $9 million), the CPP was "determined" by the Obama EPA to provide billions of dollars in benefits annuallyan imaginary amount of benefits that far exceeded the actual multi-billion estimated compliance costs of the CPP. Page 3 of 4 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002228-00003 The Trump EPA has proposed to repeal the CPP the basis that PM2.scauses no deaths at current levels- essentially ignoring the fake science of previous EPAs on PM2.s.This more realistic view of PM2.sreduced the CPP's estimated and imaginary benefits to well below its actual compliance costs. Reducing the overregulation of all the PM2.s-dependent the war-on-coal rulesincluding the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury Air Transport Standard (MATS)- requires a review of the PM2.sepidemiology under new standards. The Obama EPA's onerous and benefit-less ozone air quality standards also depend on the PM2.sfake science. It would be possible to reduce that rule's expensive and pointless overregulation by reviewing its underlying science under sound principles and standards for epidemiology. Conclusion I have enclosed with this petition a copy of my recent book, "Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA." Please note that Sen. Jim Inhofe and Dr. George Wolff, a former chairman of the EPA's Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, have both endorsed "Scare Pollution." The book explains in more detail much of what is mentioned in this letter. Epidemiology has been grossly abused by regulators and university researchers for so long, the vast majority of epidemiologists no longer care whether their work is charitably described as "garbage-in, garbage-out." That situation may be fine for agenda-driven regulators and their grant-hungry university epidemiologists, but it is a terribly destructive situation for the economy, taxpayers and science. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, /sf Steve Milloy, MHS,JD, LLM Publisher Trump EPA Transition Team member Enclosure: Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA Page 4 of 4 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002228-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 2/18/2018 12:29:57 AM Rebekah Mercer in the Wall Street Journal This lady rocks. But then again, I am a little biased. Joe Wall Street Journal February 15, 2018 Forget the Media Caricature. Here's What I Believe I support U.S. generosity, decentralized power, evidence-based science, and open discourse. By Rebekah Mercer Feb. 14, 2018 6:58 p.m. ET Over the past 18 months, I have been the subject of intense speculation and public scrutiny, in large part because of the philanthropic investments of the Mercer Family Foundation and the political contributions made by my father and me. I don't seek attention for myself and much prefer to keep a low profile. But my natural reluctance to speak with reporters has left me vulnerable to the media's sensational fantasies. Some have recklessly described me as supporting toxic ideologies such as racism and anti-Semitism. More recently I have been accused of being "anti-science." These absurd smears have inspired a few gullible, but vicious, characters to make credible death threats against my family and me. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002229-00001 Last month a writer for the Financial Times suggested mysteriously that my "political goals are something she has never publicly defined." In broad strokes this is what I believe: I believe in a kind and generous United States, where the hungry are fed, the sick are cared for, and the homeless are sheltered. All American citizens deserve equality and fairness before the law. All people should be treated with dignity and compassion. I support a United States that welcomes immigrants and refugees to apply for entry and ultimately citizenship. I reject as venomous and ignorant any discrimination based on race, gender, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation. As a federalist, I believe that power should be decentralized, with those wielding it closely accountable to the people they serve. There is obviously a role for the federal government. But I support a framework within which citizens from smaller political entities-states, counties, cities, towns and so on-can determine the majority of the laws that will govern them. Society's problems will never be solved by expensive, ineffective and inflexible federal programs. I am deeply committed to research and the scientific method. I have degrees from Stanford in biology, mathematics, and operations research and engineering economic systems. I believe that genuine scientific discovery flourishes only in an atmosphere of dispassionate, open-minded inquiry, with research evaluated according to neutral, evidence-based criteria. I oppose politicized science, in which researchers cannot study certain subjects-or even ask certain questions-for fear of career-ending backlash and persecution. These beliefs shape my philanthropy and my political activity. I support ideas and policies, not individual politicians as people. The only thing I ask of the politicians I back is that they be true to the promises that they made to their constituents during their campaigns. I supported Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign because he promised to tackle entrenched corruption on both sides of the aisle. I continue to support President Trump, which does not mean I agree with every position he has taken or every thought he has tweeted. I remain hopeful that he will continue striving to fulfill his campaign promises. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002229-00002 I own a minority stake in Breitbart News (where I have no editorial authority) because I believe it adds an important journalistic voice to the American conversation. Stephen Bannon, its former chairman, took Breitbart in the wrong direction. Now that Mr. Bannon has resigned, Breitbart has the opportunity to refine its message and expand its influence. I have chosen to involve myself with important policy issues, and with some of the institutions that discuss them, because I am, first and foremost, a mother. I am raising my children to be humble, productive citizens who will treat all people with dignity, respect and empathy. I want them to accept personal responsibility and to be aware that they alone will have to answer for their choices and actions. I hope that my children will show stoicism and perseverance through adversity, as well as an ability to think for themselves and challenge conventional wisdom when necessary. I also hope that they will embrace debate as a vital part of human progress. I am devoted to protecting individual rights to ensure that my chil This country was founded on the principle of open discourse. Intellectual diversity and vigorous, reasoned debate have been fundamental to America's success, making us the freest, most prosperous and most innovative society in human history. But we have lost our way. As my family and I know firsthand, America is now a society that threatens, pillories, and harms those who dare to question the status quo. But questioning the status quo is more important now than ever. America's future depends on it. Ms. Mercer is president of the New York-based Mercer Family Foundation. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002229-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/27/2017 10:50:40 PM George Takei loves The Heartland Institute! Friends, George Takei loves The Heartland Institute! He just recommended on Facebook a video featuring me talking about how climate realism is winning at a recent Red Team briefing we held in Houston: tbid= l 55252 l 984834854&id=205344452828349&refsrc=h h s%3A %2 Thanks, George! That bootleg audio tape with b-roll from past events isn't very good, though. Check out these much better videos from our America First Energy Conference that took place the following day: Highlights from the conference: h s:// outu.be/ ec7iL4iu9k Donald Trump speaking about energy: h s:// outu.be/vJP Ylv!SUS Trump administration folks (and a few others) praising Heartland at the conference: h s:// outu.be/RShMatkM hO Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002230-00001 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002230-00002 From: Joseph Bast Mon 3/19/2018 1:38: 17 PM WUWT: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley---Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare Sent: Subject: Christopher Monckton and coauthors have written an accessible description of their research showing an elementary error of physics caused scientists to estimate climate sensitivity to be twice its actual number: h s://wattsu withthat.com/2018/03/19/ lobal-wannin°-on-trial-and-thc-elementa physics-that-caused-thc-global-wanning-scare/ -error-of- Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002231-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/13/2017 3:04:10 PM Heartland's America First Energy Conference in the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/13/thesepeople-think-trump-is-too-liberal-on-climate/?utm term=.605a6a94725d Washington Post 11/13/2017 These people think Trump is too liberal on climate By Ramin Skibba November 13 at 7:00 AM In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement, scrapped the Clean Power Plan that sought to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power generation, pushed to open up new areas of the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling, and blocked government climate scientists from presenting at professional conferences. But for fossil fuel advocates, deregulation crusaders and climate skeptics who gathered in Houston last week for the Heartland Institute's America First Energy Conference, Trump has still not gone far enough. What Heartland, a free-market think tank based in Chicago, really wants is to revoke the "endangerment finding," which since 2009 has served as the basis for climate policies and regulations. That includes the Clean Power Plan, the main plank of Barack Obama' s climate program, which would have brought the United States within reach of meeting its commitments to the Paris agreement. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002232-00001 So far, however, Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have not tried to overturn the endangerment finding. And that is a mistake, according to several people at the Heartland conference. However, Trump and Pruitt are coming under growing pressure to try to scrap the finding from a number of figures who have played an influential role in the administration's thinking about climate change - including two members of the president's transition team who spoke at the Heartland conference: Steve Milloy and David Schnare. "The endangerment finding is the root of all global warming evil at the EPA, and we're trying to figure out here what is the best way to get that thing reconsidered and undone," Milloy, an attorney and long-time opponent of the EPA who runs the website JunkScience.com, told the Heartland conference. "It's not really clear that the administration views this with the same urgency that we do," he added. The endangerment finding states that emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels count as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and endanger public health and welfare. It provides the legal justification for the EPA to regulate these harmful gases. The finding has been repeatedly upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and other jurisdictions. Recent scientific studies, including the National Climate Assessment report released earlier this month, have also helped reinforce the finding. Michael Gerrard, a director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University and who was not at the conference, said there is little chance of overturning the finding. "Those who favor its repeal probably see it as their Hail Mary play they win, they win big," Gerrard said. the odds are low, but if But that did not deter the speakers at the Heartland conference, including Milloy and Schnare. "The goal here is not to change the policy but to correct the science," said Richard B. Belzer, an independent consultant on regulatory economics and a fellow at the free-market R Street Institute think tank. Belzer has also previously worked with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which, like the Heartland Institute, was once merely a right-wing outlier. The organizations' libertarian positions put them in the fringe of U.S. politicsonly I in 10 Americans consider themselves libertarians and know what the term means, according to Pew Research Center survey - yet they have effectively become policy brain trusts of the Trump administration. Schnare, former director of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, called on Trump and SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002232-00002 Pruitt to coordinate their approach toward the endangerment finding. "You're only going to be successful if you get the EPA and [White House's] Office of Science and Technology Policy working together," Schnare said. Schnare argued that to remove the endangerment finding, each line of evidence supporting it needs to be challenged. Other speakers went on to attack the science behind the finding. Harry MacDougald, an attorney at an Atlanta law firm who previously worked with the Competitive Enterprise Institute to challenge the endangerment finding, disputed the mainstream scientific consensus that global temperatures have exceeded natural variation and that oceans have become more acidic due to climate change. The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a petition to the EPA to reconsider the endangerment finding earlier this year while making similar claims. Even if climate scientists are right, MacDougald argued, climate regulations would impose a "colossal expenditure." That argument - about the costs of cutting emissions - could be gaining traction in Pruitt's EPA, said Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who was not a participant at the conference. "The EPA is sympathetic to that argument now in a way that it wasn't in 2009," she said. However, Gerrard argued that, for the time being at least, the endangerment finding is on firm ground and that as a result the EPA is legally required to cut greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. "I think that Pruitt is being advised that trying to revoke the endangerment finding would be a clear legal loser," he said. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002232-00003 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002232-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/13/2017 2:22:53 PM Heartland's America First Energy Conference in E&E News/Energywire HIT Roger Bezdek. Joe Climate economics loom over agencies' Heartland victory lap E&E News reporter Published: Monday, November 13, 2017 HOUSTON -A senior Interior Department adviser last week took the podium in front of a crowd of climate change skeptics to outline his agency's agenda for cutting through swaths of Obama-era rules. But the most powerful deregulatory tool at the Trump administration's disposal may be its changed approach to calculating the risks of living on a warming planet. "The war on American energy is completely over," Vincent DeVito said in dinnertime remarks during Thursday's America First Energy Conference hosted by the Heartland Institute, a vocal questioner of climate science. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's energy counselor highlighted some of the the department has taken to systematically map out and roll back every action that presents a burden to energy developers particularly those that extract fossil fuels. "It's the tangible effect of having a president who believes in a free market and in limited government," DeVito said. "He knows those are the elements for American greatness." Interior isn't alone in its actions. The department's review came in response to an "energy independence" executive order signed by President Trump in March. The wide-ranging=='---'--"" also offered specific instructions for U.S. EPA and triggered a batch of regulatory examinations from many agencies '""-'-'~rr u_""d'cC":c:., Oct. 24). "Washington has become way too consequential in the lives of Americans across the country. And the president has elected to change that," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a video address to the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002233-00001 Heartland conference. "We've been changing that here at the EPA. Regulatory reform is happening, but beyond that, we're changing attitudes here. "The attitude when we arrived said you can't be about growth and jobs and also be a good steward of the environment. That's inaccurate. That's a false narrative." Pro-energy remarks by administration officials met a receptive audience at the Heartland conference. Panels included discussions of the "total insanity" of a renewable energy future and the "noble lie" of the dangers of air pollution and climate change. After reading from a section of the National Climate Assessment - a document released this month by the Trump administration that found human activity was "extremely likely" to be the primary contributor to climate change - Thomas Hayward, former chief of naval operations, took a beat. "Are we supposed to believe that stuff?" he asked. One breakout session questioned the link between air pollution and human health. University of California, Irvine, researcher Robert Phalen, one of the panelists, suggested in 2012 that exposing children to contaminated air can help their bodies adapt to pollution. His comment drew the ire of environmentalists. EPA has tapped Phalen to serve on its Science Advisory Board (Greenwire, Nov. 6). Changing the climate equation Phalen's co-panelist, Texas physician John Dale Dunn, laid out a strategy for knocking out a slew of Obama-era regulations. "If [environmentalists] can't show the nexus with human health, they've got nothing to work with. That's what they're always talking about: 'The air is killing people. Hot is going to kill people,"' he said. "That's what their hook is. And if we can establish that they can't prove anything about their claims, then the economics go to hell. "They can't talk about benefits," he said. "Because they're counting deaths as their big benefit for doing these regs." In a Nov. 1 analysis of the Trump administration's deregulatory strategy, Clearview Energy Partners LLC Managing Director Kevin Book pointed to calculations of the "social cost" of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane as a vulnerable element in efforts to bring to bear the future ramifications of climate change. Those equations play an important role in estimates of the costs and benefits of EPA's Clean Power Plan and Interior's rule for curbing methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public lands. Both rules, introduced under President Obama, are set for repeal or suspension. "Calculations that incorporate lower benefits from avoided [greenhouse gas] emissions leave less room for federal agencies to offset the explicit costs borne by industrial stakeholders and/or end-users in their regulatory cost/benefit analyses," Book wrote. There are no statutory restrictions for changing those calculations, he said. "In other words, the Trump Administration's sec [social cost of carbon] may be just as valid as, and no SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002233-00002 less controversial than, the Obama Administration's SCC," Book wrote. But climate scientists and advocates are set to fight the Trump administration's approach (Climatewire, Oct. 25). The Government Accountability Office this fall take on the economics of climate change. the Trump administration to seriously reconsider its "Climate change impacts are already costing the federal government money, and these costs will likely increase over time as the climate continues to change," GAO wrote. "Even though existing information on the potential economic effects of climate change ... is imprecise, it could help identify significant potential damages for federal decision makers - an initial step in the process for managing climate risks." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002233-00003 From: Joseph Bast Wed 4/4/2018 4:21 :14 PM Teachers and students at a CO middle school react to "Why Scientists Disagree" Student Letters - teachers and sample.pdf Sent: Subject: Friends, Last year, Heartland mailed copies of Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming to most public school science teachers, professors of physical sciences, and national and state elected officials in the U.S. Some liberal advocacy groups masquerading as "pro-science" associations of teachers, such as National Association for Science Education, howled in protest and got a few teachers to express their "outrage" that we would presume to instruct them on such a simple topic as climate science. Our own survey showed most teachers, though, appreciated hearing the other side laid out clearly and professionally. More recently, two teachers at a Colorado middle school used Why Scientists Disagree as part of their mini-indoctrination camp, and sent us letters bragging about their accomplishment, along with some 200 pages of letters from the students themselves. Would you like to see what they wrote? The teachers are Anthonette Klinkerman (what a perfect name for a teacher, isn't it?) and John McKinney, the school is Mountain Ridge Middle School in Highland Ranch, Colorado, and attached are their letters and only six or seven letters by students, for a total of 10 pages. I can send you the entire 202-page file if you are interested. We're not sure what to do with this. We're too busy educating adults to try to debate seventh graders, and these "teachers" quite plainly aren't interested in learning anything. But maybe you have time to correspond with the teachers? Perhaps these letters offer insight into what is happening in public schools these days. Maybe you could write op-eds, or more, quoting and commenting on the teachers' and students' letters? Let me know ... Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002234-00001 Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002234-00002 Mountain Ridge Middle School 10590 Mountain Vista Ridge Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 Heartland Institute 3439 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois March 5, 2018 Center for Transforming Education: last summer when I arrived at school I found some materials delivered from the Heartland Institute. Included in this package was a copy of your book: Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming. I teachl__Ex._ 6_- Personal__ Privacy__ ]andeach year my students spend about six weeks studying combustion chemistry and the environmental effects of humans' love affair with fire. Since this is a science class we spend time examining the chemistry of combustion and the data surrounding fossil fuel consumption on our planet (see attached outline of the unit of study). At the end of this unit we try to grapple with one of the most important questions of our time: What are the consequences of burning some 10-12 trillion tons of carbon fuels over the last 400 years? After reading your book, and considering the political bias of the Heartland Institute, I find the information to be inaccurate and misleading. Important data such as the Keeling curve and the present trends in CO2,and other greenhouse gases,are clearly omitted. Telling students that global climate change is less of a threat than terrorism is an unfounded claim that is scientifically irrelevant, and politically motivated. Given the mission statement of the Heartland Institute, I would recommend that you stick to free market politics and stop trying to promote your point of view about climate change as scientific. I do agree that all scientists have a responsibility to be skeptical of new ideas such as human caused climate change, however, we are also expected to fairly examine all the data as we assessthis threat to mankind. 6 1 1 In conjunction with mv!.:~:_ _;;_•~•~-~ .:.!. ~~c_YJeacher, we had 170 eighth graders evaluate your book and video after our studies of fire and fossil fuels. We thought you might want to know what these very informed students think of the materials you have sent to over 200,000 public school teachers across the United States. Please accept these letters from our students as feedback on the materials you are sharing as "scientific" research. Know that these students were free to pick either point of view as long as they supported their viewpoint with scientific evidence. As you will see these students are not only well informed, but they are also passionate about the health of the global environment. Our school prides itself on developing critical thinkers who are able to interpret complex data sets in their assessment of environmental challenges. Thank you providing us with this wonderful opportunity express our informed opinions about Global Climate Change and the clear evidence of the impacts of anthropogenic carbon on our fragile planet. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00001 Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00002 Mountain Ridge Middle School 10590 Mountain Vista Ridge Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 March 5, 2018 Dear Mr. Jarrett, When your lnstitute's unsolicited materials arrived last summer, my colleague and team !__ Ex. 6 · Personal_PrivacyJeacher jumped on the opportunityto create a real-life learningexperience for our students. What better way to teach persuasive writing and business letter format, as well as professional etiquette, than to teach students how to respond to other persuasive forms of writing and media such as yours. To be fair, as a class we viewed your enclosed DVD, and examined the first part of the book where in the forward by Marita Noon she stated "Obama and his followers". I could not have asked for a better example of slant and bias than that. Calling someone a "follower" is slander at best, and insinuates the word "mindless" precedes it. But to your credit, the marketing materials were impressively done. Interestingly, on page 59 of your booklet, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. your authors write "Attempting to stifle debate by appealing to authority hinders rather than helps scientific progress and understanding." Is not that the exact goal of mailing your materials to 200,000 science teachers across the USA last year? This is another fine example of persuasive techniques, particularly, as my students learned, the use of "Undermining opposing views". My students had a choice to agree or disagree with your findings, and as they accessed their background knowledge they came to a near 99% majority agreement that global warming is indeed attributed to the amounts of CO2 put into the atmosphere by the emissions of human development and technology. This was without further research until we began this project. Your rather dubious connections to questionable organizations around the county notwithstanding, my students seized the rich learning contained here, including learning they, too, can have a voice regardless of their inability to cast a vote, how to be sophisticated in an argument, how to analyze websites and materials for authenticity and sponsorship, how to be efficient and concise with their words and vocabulary, as well as how to be assertive when approaching an adult and doing so in a mature manner. They learned the essential skills of evaluation when it comes to materials from an unreliable and opinionated source, how to apply knowledge cross-curricularly, real world application of knowledge, the fine art of rebuttal, the imperative skill of editing one's work for clarity and accuracy, all of these being exceptionally transferable skills for today's politically climate-influenced arenas. (Pun intended.) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00003 At any rate, thank you for the rich opportunity to teach the most important skill of all, that being critical thinking. I am happy to report Generation Z is well on their way. Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00004 MRMS 10590 Mountain Vista Ridge, Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 Heartland Institute 3493 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 6004 Feb 21, 2018 Dear Heartland Institute, I would kindly have to disagree with you with your conclusion that climate change is not man-made. Did you know that the climate change has grown dramatically over the years? Did you know that the earth's population has grown 1.5 to 6.1 billion in just the last 100 years? The more people there are the worse climate change is getting. Climate change is caused by man and everything we are doing to cause air pollution. Over 100 years ago climate change was fine, then the world gained more and more people. More people means more needs for transportation. Whether it's a car, bus, light rail, even plane, people do all sorts of things during the day such as grocery shopping and more, but they prefer a car to get there. Cars, buses, and more types of transportation cause pollution from running engines. Cars and other types of transportation are used 24/7, so there is no escaping it Some times of the day are worse than others such as rush hour, some are even better like the middle of the night. But whether better or worse there is still car pollution. Greenhouse gases are getting out of control. What are greenhouse gases caused by? You guessed it, humans. Humans have increased greenhouse gas levels which has led to the greenhouse effect. Heat is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. This extra heat creates global warming which affects the earth's weather patterns and leads to different climate changes around the world. Acid increases the chance for climate change. Acid rain can be caused by human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases, or by processes in oceans, volcanoes, tectonics or solar radiation. Acid rain is very dangerous', it can affect plants, humans, even aquatic animals. Acid rain is caused when acid gases rise into the sky and mix with the clouds. This causes the clouds to absorb the acid gases and when the clouds produce rain, it falls with a higher than normal level of acidity. Acid gases are mainly caused by humans burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. Humans are affected when we breathe in air pollution. This can cause breathing problems and even cancer. Air pollution traps sunlight which causes climate change. When it gets hotter there is more air pollution. So air pollution causes climate change and that climate change follows right back to air pollution. It's a vicious cycle. Climate change is getting worse and it's all of our faults. ! __ Sincerely, ---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : l.---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-J SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002235-00005 MRMS 10590 Mountain Vista Ridge Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL February 20, 2018 Dear Mr. Jarratt, Globaf warming is man-made because of the population of the world is going up and up. The estimated population of the world is 7.6 Billion people. Americans make up 30 % of the pollution produced in the world. The estimated population of the world in 2050 will be 9.8 Billion. Deforestation has been linked to Global Warming. The more trees cut down, the less CO2 is taken in because trees take in CO2 and the less the more CO2 in the air. I personally did this in science are project that you already know and one of the leading cause from deforestation is in Alaska. The ice is melting which is releasing the CO2 that the ice has frozen inside of of it and when it melts that is even more CO2 is released. My third and final illustration of showing that Global Warming is manmade is vehicles and anything that releases gas/smoke into the air. This shows a lot of problems because humans made vehicles, and almost every adult in the world has a vehicle of some sort. Making a car releases five pounds of greenhouse gases, and every gallon of gas a car drives it releases 19 pounds of greenhouse gases. There are about 1.015 billion motor vehicles in the world, so think about that 1.015 times that by five because that is how much greenhouse gases are released when a motor vehicle is made. We aren't even done yet. Then every gallon that one of those 1.015 motor vehicles goes it puts 19 pounds of greenhouse gases into the air. If I were you than i would be really sad because of making this statement. Sincerely, .--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1 i i ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! i i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00006 Mountain Ridge Middle School 10590 Mountain Vista Ridge Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 February 14, 2018 Dear Mr. Jarratt, I am an 8th grader at Mountain Ridge Middle School. I believe that we, the people living on planet Earth, are the leading cause of climate change. You stated, "Probably the most widely repeated claim in debate over global warming is that '97% of scientists agree' that climate change is man-made and dangerous. This claim is not only false, but its pretence in the debate is an insult to science." Your claim is false because we are the ones polluting the air with lots of carbon dioxide. You saying that climate change is not man-made is an insult to science. According to the Environmental Defence Fund, we add 70 million metric TONS of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. That means that we emit approximately 25 .5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year! And that number keeps rising. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts that in the next century there will be a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. We are clearing out trees, and when we kill those trees that absorb carbon dioxide, it sends heaMrapping gases into the atmosphere. We burn fossil fuels for uses in our everyday lives. We burn them to drive cars, generate electricity, and to operate our businesses and homes. When we emit a lot of CO2 into our atmosphere because of our greatly-polluting cars and technology, it cause the greenhouse effect to increase. CO2 gets trapped in the "blanket" around our atmosphere. When the amount of CO2 in the blanket increases, that gases inside the "blanket" cause the temperature to rise. The more CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the wanner it gets. Global climate change is also happening because of tropical deforestation. F anners are chopping down large acres ofland to make more room for crops and livestock. We are killing sun-blocking trees that keep the ground wet. Without protection from the trees, the ground quickly dries up. Because of us, 3.5 billion to 7 billion trees are cut down each year. If humans did not do these terrible things to our atmosphere, climate change would not be occuring. You clearly did not state any facts about why you all believe climate change is not man-made. You are taking data and twisting it. You are trying to convince people of your faulty interpretation. We are the ones causing this issues. We need to stop this, and you are not helping us solve this issue. Sincerely, .--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· . i I Ex. 6 - Personal ! Privacy / i ! t-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002235-00007 MRMS 10595 Mountain Vista Ridge Highlands Ranch, Co 80126 Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 Dear Mr. Jarratt. I am here today to question your Wh)'. Scientists NIPCC*Re12ort ooScientific Consem>ys writing. Disagree AboutGlobalWarming: The To start off, what has gone wrong? It isn't scientifically called global warming anymore as it is referred to as climate change. What is the difference between climate change and global warming? Not much, it is just the scientific word for it nowadays. One of your other claims was "Probably the most widely repeated claim in debate over global warming is that '97% of scientists agree' that climate change is man-made and dangerous. This claim is not only false, but its pretence in the debate is an insult to science." This is not true because it is obviously man-made. All of the pollution our cars, ships, and trucks emit are man made so the claim you made was bizarre. As well, some of the topics didn't have anything to do with the climate change. One thing that was stated was something about the president in the beginning, and that doesn't have anything to do with it, does it? I saw a video of global warming and it was talking about how high the levels are going to get and how the temperature is going to increase a lot, but what you were talking about didn't go nearly as far into the future. They gave real predictions that were going to happen as to your guesses. The last thing I will mention is how you're not giving anyone good facts. You guys as an organization are lying to everyone that reads your writings. If you are putting out fake news everyone will start believing this and it will mess with some people. When I first read your writing, I believed it and then I did research and it showed me how wrong it was. My conclusion is that you need to step up your game. Find facts not guesses or assumptions. You will be getting hundreds of letters and emails from eighth graders soon about how you messed up your facts. Good luck with your next writings! ___________ Sincerely! ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· I Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! i ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· ! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00008 Mountain Ridge Middle School 10590 Mountain Vista Ridge Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 Hartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 February 20, 2018 Associates of the Heartland Institute, While terrorism, murder, and displacement of families are large issues, the effects concerning climate change on our planet will be the demise of our Earth. Your claims, stating that climate change is not man-made, are advertising false information on the issues, and that the climate catastrophe is as unlikely to come true as the "sk-y is falling" predictions are all false. You say that these issues are all natural, that the sun has just begun to put more radiation and thermal energy into our atmosphere, when, in fact, all of these disasters occurring on our planet are occurring because of the near 7 .5 billion inhabitants. Discovering fossil fuels was a huge benefit to the human race, but discovering what we could do with them has created the worldwide disaster of climate change. Container ships that use a gallon of fuel for every three feet they travel, millions of automobiles that drive 100,000 miles per car, and tractors and other farming machines, all contribute to the mass amounts of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Research of carbon dioxide levels taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, shows a large increase in CO 2 from 316 .97 parts per million in 1960 to 407 .98 parts per million in January of this year. Greenhouse gases are made up mostly of carbon dioxide, but also contain amounts of methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone; these gases create what is known as the greenhouse effect. They mimic a blanket, keeping thermal energy created by your body in one area to keep you warm. The greenhouse gas "blanket" in the atmosphere traps the thermal energy and radiation from the sun and keeps it from escaping, changing the temperatures of the earth. Temperature changes have caused near calamity. Glaciers and ice sheets in Antarctica in Greenland have begun to melt, sea levels are rising, and in just under fifty years, major cities like New York City, New York, Venice, Italy, Tokyo, Japan, and many more will all be engulfed by water. Flooding from the rising of the sea levels contaminates the groundwater and pollutes the soil in farmlands throughout the world. Rising levels of water are also changing biomes and ecosystems by increasing the humidity of the air in certain places and creating more vegetation in those areas. The greenhouse effect is a consequence of combustion created by man, not nature. Man created it, man can't stop it, and man now has to deal with the consequences. Prior to today's levels, the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere has not gone above 300 parts per million (ppm). Today, the amounts of CO 2 in the atmosphere are above 400 ppm, turning this into a moral issue where our actions are not only affecting the 7.5 billion inhabitants of this earth, but the planet itself. So, yes, terrorism, murder, and displacement of families are big problems, but the main killer of our earth is the growing issue of global climate change. Sincerely, . ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1 ! ! i i ! i i.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ! i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00009 MRMS 10590 Mountain Vista Ridge Highland Ranch, CO 80126 Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 February 20, 2018 Dear Mr. Jarratt, Every single day CO2 is released into the Atmosphere. Our only resource to protect our earth. All of us use fossil fuels on a daily basis, like going to school or work: our cars use fossil fuels and most other kinds of transportation also do. All of us have a pretty marvelous addiction to fossil fuels but that's not the worst part about it though. With this amount of CO2 we're the cause of Climate Change even though people are saying, 'Why is it so bad if it only has changed by one degree?" Eventually, that one degree changes our whole climate and animal habitats are being destroyed. How many fossil fuels do we use per day? Well, millions and millions are used every day and in a year we use billions. If we burn that much fossil fuel every single day, well guess what? All that is going into our Atmosphere as CO2 and we just need to stop doing this. It's a real effect, which allows more of the sun's rays to enter into our atmosphere which can warm up our sweet home, Earth. Our own human species has a big addiction to fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, we could make the earth a better place than without using fossil fuels. By using fossil fuels we are going to be gone from earth faster than we would be without using them in our daily life for transportation or anything else that you could think of. Since all of that causes global warming. Every single day we do that and you can see carbon dioxide everywhere because almost everything that you have at your house was made with some kind of fossil fuels. We all know that climate change is occurring, but everyone has different beliefs about things, but this isn't about "beliefs". With my knowledge of science. I believe this is accurate about the use of fossil fuels and the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the past few years I have always heard that Climate Change is not occurring and whenever someone says that it's not accurate, I don't agree. I feel this way because I have learned many things this year about Climate Change with my great science teacher, one of the smartest people I have ever met. Heartland Institute, your nonsense facts are wrong. Sincerely, I -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-1 i i !i Ex. 6 - Personal i i Privacy i !i i i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002235-00010 From: Sent: Subject: h Joseph Bast Mon 11/27/2017 10:16:37 PM More winning: EPA removing AGW propaganda from its website s://www.n times.com/2017/11/22/o inion/censorin -climate-chan e.html?mwrsm=Email Censoring Climate Change NOV. 22, 2017 The Trump administration is making it harder to find government information about climate change on the web. If you searched Google for the words "climate change" a little over six months ago, one of the first hits would have been the Environmental Protection Agency's website. Of all the government websites we've been monitoring, the E.P.A.'s has been hit hardest. Terms like "greenhouse gases," "carbon" and "climate change" have been replaced by vague descriptors like "sustainability" and "emissions." In addition, web resources about specific regulations have disappeared. One website that has vanished concerned the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama's effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electric power generation. It was replaced by a single web page containing only information about a presidential order calling for a review of the plan. Months later, the E.P.A. announced that it would seek to repeal the Obama plan. Removing information about the plan's benefits has made it difficult for citizens to provide informed comments during the repeal process. Toly Rinberg (@TolyRinberg) and Andrew Bergman (@andmbergman) are members of the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative's Website Monitoring Committee and are fellows at the Sunlight Foundation. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002236-00001 To: From: Sent: Subject: Vern Mooren~x-_--s·:·-Perso·nai.Privacy-·: Joseph Bas(-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Mon 11/27/2017 5:19:11 PM CO2 and 02, a request for scientific expertise Friends, The execrable=.:...::..::...."-'--=== is once again posing as an objective climate scientist in letters to the editor of a newspaper in NE Wisconsin ... a paper he and Michael Mann used to libel many of us involved in the climate change debate. Vern Moore sends Bada's October 27 LTE and his own reply of November 24. If you have insight into the scientific issues raised in this exchange, please consider relying to Vern at i__Ex._6_-_Personal_Privacy __ ! Joe From: Vern Moore [mailto:i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 7:56 AM ' To: Joseph Bast Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving, and an update on The Patriot's Toolbox Joe, below is a spat we're having locally about atmospheric oxygen that is usually referred to as a by product of photosynthesis. I would label it a major product that is a necessity for aerobic life on he planet. In our climate change feud, I think it should be a part of the science and discussion about climate change. As you know, I'm a retired scientist from another field. You have much better contacts with climate change experts than I. I'm wondering if you can channel this discussion to scientists in the field who can use it to better advantage than I. Thanks, Vern SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED _001389A_00002237-00001 Moore should be careful about who he champions To the Editor: Jeffrey Bada, The Lakeland Times, 27 October 2017 Vern Moore (Lakeland times letter, Oct. 3, 2017) champions the views of Dr. Roy Spencer, a supposed "prominent climate change scientist," for "science based truths," such as "CO, is not the major greenhouse gas, it is water vapor" and "We'd be in a hell of a mess if we allow the alarmists to tinker around with the levels of atmospheric CO, to the point that atmospheric oxygen is reduced excessively." The first statement about water being a greenhouse gas is generally correct, but its contribution was about the same as that of carbon dioxide before atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. The difference is that the atmosphere is saturated with water (it rains doesn't it) while carbon dioxide is not even close to saturation (it does not rain cabin dioxide, at least on Earth). Today, carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing because of emissions from burning fossil fuel and thus now it is a bigger greenhouse gas component than water. The second statement about tinkering with the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide might cause a dramatic lower of he amount of atmospheric oxygen is non-sense. As fossil fuel is burned, oxygen is consumed. My Scripps Institution of Oceanography colleague Ralph Keeling has shown, careful measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere indicates a very, very small detectable decrease in atmospheric oxygen in concert with increasing carbon dioxide. The small decrease in oxygen is because it makes up 21 percent of the atmospheric gases whereas carbon dioxide is a measly 0.04 percent. As has been recently discussed, if the small decrease in atmospheric oxygen continues, it would take about 3,600 years before there would be any noticeable effect on human health. Martin, D. et al, 2017. The human physiological impact of deoxygenation. J. physiological Sciences, 1-10. As for Spencer being an expert on global warming and climate change, it should be noted that he has called scientists, who use the word "deniers" for "scientists" like him who reject global warming and climate change, "global alarmist Nazis" and that "Like the Nazis they are anti-capitalist" (www.drroyspencer.com/201402/tim-to-push-back-against-the-globalwarming-nazis/). These ostentatious and offensive comments that are meant simply to encourage far right-wing conspiracy pseudo-science and hardly befitting for a supposed firstrate scientist. If Spencer does not like being labeled a global warming/climate change "denier" why don't we use the term "non-believer" instead? As Barnhill noted in his Sept. 29, 2017 letter that got Moore agitated, some of he same SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002237-00002 tactics used by "scientists" who argued against a relationship between smoking to back and lung cancer are those used by global warming/climate change "nonbelievers." In fact, one of these "scientists" is none other than S. Fred Singer, a serial "non-believer' active in both of these ant science campaign. Remember who won in the tobacco-cancer controversy? Response to Bada letter To the Editor: Vern Moore, The Lakeland Times, 24Nov2017 We agree it does not rain CO2on Earth. Dr. Bada should read my letter more carefully before throwing quotes around he says I attribute to Dr. Roy Spencer (The Times, Oct. 27, 2017). The quotes in the first paragraph of my letter ("prominent climate scientist" "CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas; it is water vapor" "We'd be in a hell of a mess ... ") are my own assertions and I did not attribute them to Spencer. I stand by my statement, and re-affirm it, that Spencer is a prominent, outstanding climate scientist. I do not agree with Bada that the "contributions of water vapor and CO2were about the same ... but now CO2is a bigger component." Currently, CO2is present in the atmosphere a a concensraiono of 0.04 percent. Water vapor concentration varies with humidity from about 2 to 7 percent. Even with a mean concentration of 2 percent, water vapor's concentration is 50-fold more abundant than CO2. (Bada, we're considering water vapor, the gaseous phase of water, not the aqueous phase!) Moreover, as I have repeatedly stated in The Times, the Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1998, even in the presence of continuous massive increases of atmospheric CO2. Therefore, how can anyone, especially a scientist like Bada, claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2is causing catastrophic global warming? I certainly agree that burning fossil fuels consumes oxygen, but that's only one side of the coin. The other side is that atmospheric oxygen (02) just doesn't appear out of thin air; it is SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002237-00003 synthesized. The majority, perhaps even 100 percent, of this synthesis is by photosynthesis whose substrate is CO2. In their mad, irrational rush to stop what they see as catastrophic global warming, the Alarmists could reduce CO2levels to the point where plants no longer grow somewhere around 150 ppm - and severely depress the synthesis of atmospheric 02. This would be a real catastrophe! It appears that a large proportion of 02 is produced by phytoplankton, microscopic photosynthetic organisms that live in the ocean (Martin D, et al. J Physiol. Sci. 67: 97, 2017) - and they could use CO2in the ocean rather than atmospheric CO2. One way to ensure adequate levels of 02 would be to promote increases of CO2in he atmosphere which is likely to be far more beneficial than harmful. These alarmists are nasty people. I am dismayed Bada would attack Roy Spencer's religious views and practices, as if they are of any relevance to our debate about climate change. Fortunately, we live in a country where wee are at liberty to practice our own religion - or to not practice religion at all if that is our choice The late great Justice Antonin Scalia said it best as I paraphrase it. Scalia: I have political and religious views but I'm not authorized to impose them on society as a Supreme Court justice. I've never met Roy Spencer but I'd make a big wager that his religious view play no role in his practice of science, except perhaps inspirational. And I've not witnessed him trying to impose his religious views on science. This is a new low in the Alarmists' attempt to discredit Realists by propaganda rather than scientific facts. Bada also demonizes Dr. Spencer for labeling Climate Alarmists as "global warming Nazis." Where does he think Spencer came up with this idea? It is from the constant, denigrating claim by Alarmists that climate realists are "deniers." This term is a derivation of "Holocaust deniers" annotation and implicitly associates Realists with deniers of the holocaust. An eye for an eye. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Bada thinks my suggestion about reduction of atmospheric oxygen levels is nonsense. I hope he's right. But let me provide some quotes from the publication he cited (Martin D., et al. J Physiol. Sci. 67: 106, 2017 - the correct citation by the way - and another review article (Tatchell, The Guardian, Aug. 13, 2008). Tatchell, The Guardian - "Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by one third and in polluted cities the decline maybe more than 50 percent. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potential serious implications for our health." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002237-00004 Martin D, et al. - "There has been a clear decline in the volume of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere over the past 20 years. Although the magnitude of this decease appears small compared to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It is difficult to predict how this process may evolve, due to the brevity of the collected records. A recently proposed model predicts a non-linear decay, which would result in an increasingly rapid fall off in atmospheric oxygen concentration, with potentially devastating consequences for human health." Lest I be accused of scare mongering, I agree with Bada that such changes occur over large time periods. However, it is certainly timely to think and act seriously about the atmospheric levels of 02. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002237-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/27/2017 4:39:16 PM Delingpole: Exposed - the Liberal Astroturfers Behind the Global Warming Scare An excellent piece exposing the donors and agendas of the pro-carbon tax crowd. Joe h tp://www.breitbart.com/big-govemment/2017 /11/24/delingpole-exposed-thc-liberalastroturfers-behind-thc-global-warming-scare/ In order to drain the swamp, President Trump must first destroy the Green Blob. This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from a series of data leaks and Freedom of Information (FOi) revelations exposing the relationship between left wing campaigners and the great climate change scam. Global warming, it becomes clear, is primarily a left-wing political issue, not a scientific one. Green is the new red. These leaks show how rich liberal backers-left-wing institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation, eco hedge-fund billionaires like Tom Steyer, and the various socialistic Geek Emperors of Silicon Valley-are funneling millions of dollars into sock-puppet environmental organizations both to undermine Trump's economic agenda and to finance his political opponents both in the Democratic Party and the GOP. U.S. Climate Alliance This poses as "a bi-partisan coalition of states is committed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement." Or so the website says. But anyone can set up a website. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002238-00001 The truth, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has discovered through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-requested email correspondence, is that U.S. Climate Alliance is just a front. Its real purpose is to enable the richly funded green lobby to buy up Democrat governors-and one, token, squishy Republican governor: Gov. Charlie Baker (MA)-by effectively bribing them with free office, research and staffing facilities which they can run off books. There is nothing actually illegal in any of this. But to appreciate how ethically dubious it is, just consider how the liberal media would respond if the roles were reversed and it were conservative politicians being provided with all these off-books services by, say, the fossil fuel industry. Chris Horner, who initiated the FOIA for the CEI, put it like this in the Washington Times: Mr. Horner asked how the media would react if, for example, the Koch brothers provide staffing on behalf of a Republican governor. "This would unleash a tsunami of Pulitzers and hysteria if the political parties or priorities were changed," said Mr. Horner. "Here is a real test for 'good government' activists-is this all right if the 'right' politicians and donors pushing the approved agenda outsource government?" What the emails show is the intimate relationship between the liberal donors, green sock puppet organizations and Democrat politics. Energy in Depth Climate reports here on some of the details: Climate activist groups, most notably Climate Nexus-a sponsored project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors-act as the press arm for these governors' offices at no charge. They also operate as a "shadow staff'to support climate change communications efforts, and supplied research later promoted by these state governors as their own. This includes at least one for-profit contractor, raising the question who its actual paying client is. The three main Democrat governors fronting the U.S. Climate Alliance are Washington Gov. Jay lnslee, California Gov. Jerry Brown and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But the people actually running it are green lobbyists and activists, doing the bidding of their wealthy anonymous donors in liberal strongholds like Silicon Valley, as well as the usual liberal suspects such as the Rockefeller and Hewlett Foundations. One prominent figure is Jeff Nesbit, Executive Director of a green organization called Climate Nexus. In the emails he is revealed in close discussion with Sam Ricketts, director of Jay lnslee's Washington DC office. According to the Washington Times: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002238-00002 "How come governors aren't even listed on the website?" Mr. Ricketts email. ~~ in a June 5 Mr. Nesbit replied: "They will be! I promise. It's controlled by WWF [apparently referring to the World Wildlife Fund]. They're melting down over there. I'll make sure the 9 governors are listed ASAP." Mr. Nesbit also wore the hat of press secretary, saying he needed to send a joint statement from.!..!..!..!..:.....!..!..!=:::::., Mr. Brown and Mr. Cuomo to The New York Times. "Do you have it? Is it approved? Is lnslee available to talk to the NYT and others today before __ does his Rose Garden ceremony at the WH?" Mr. Nesbit asked in the June 1 email. According to Mr. Nesbit,=..:..:.:....:....:..::..::...:::....,:....:..== a sponsored project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, provided its services free of charge and without a contract. What becomes clear from the emails is the extent of sock puppetry-which the Green Blob uses to give the impression of representing many disparate groups, when in fact they are all just a small group of the same people wearing different hats. There is no shortage of money to support this scam. According to the Washington Times: Even before Mr. Trump announced his intention in June to exit the 2015 climate accord, state employees in California, New York and..:....::....::=.:....:.=~ had discussed enlisting the help of outside advocacy groups. Aimee Barnes, senior adviser to Mr. Brown, proposed reaching out to the Georgetown Climate Center, Under2 Coalition and others, saying that "it can't always be us staff running around trying to corral each other for sign on." "We are fortunate that at the moment there are many resources keen to be at our disposal to support us further, but in order to make the best use of them, we need to tell them what we need," Ms. Barnes said in a May 5 email. Mr. Ricketts responded in a May 9 email by noting, "There's of course a plethora of advocate and funder interest," adding, "We can approach the different groups (G-town, Rhodium, UNF, whomever) about which of them will play a roll." A week later, Georgetown Climate Center Deputy Director Kathryn Zyla provided an update in an email sent to state staffers and climate change advocates. "We also wanted to let you know that we are working with the Georgetown IT department to develop a platform that can assist this group with communications and shared resources, and will keep you posted. (Please let us know if you have any thoughts on key features for that platform.)," Ms. Zyla said in a May 16 email. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002238-00003 GCC spokesman Chris Coil said the group had no contract with the states. "We support state engagement on climate change (as we have done on a bipartisan basis for many years) free of charge," he said. lnslee senior adviser Chris Davis put in a plug for Ann McCabe and her team at the Climate Registry, calling them in a June 5 email, "Great partners who've covered our costs for COPs and provided extraordinary on site services and support." Inevitably, there is a Clinton connection to all this skullduggery: In another instance, the Alliance released a report about economic output and greenhouse gas emissions. Although branded as their own research, it turns out that the report relied almost exclusively on data compiled by the Rhodium Group-an organization headed by a former Hillary Clinton energy and climate advisor, Trevor Houser. Indeed, given that the central focus of the emails obtained by CEI is tapping the "plethora of advocate and funder interest" in providing support functions which were beyond the ability of the governors' offices, it seems far more likely this pricey gift was provided to the governors by the for-profit Rhodium Group. What isn't yet clear is which clients paid for this glossy product of a high-priced consultancy. It's unsurprising that the Rockefellers have found a way to exert their influence inside state governors' offices. Climate Nexus has also been heavily involved in promoting the #ExxonKnew campaign for the Rockefellers. When the RICO 20-a group of professors who petitioned the Obama administration to bring racketeering charges against those who disagreed with the president's climate agenda-faced enormous backlash for their efforts to silence dissent, Climate Nexus rushed in to clean up the mess. You see, the RICO 20 was suggesting that the government prosecute individual climate skeptics, which got in the way of the Rockefellers' plans to have the government go after energy companies. Climate Nexus also receives funding from the Energy Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, two other groups heavily involved in backing the #ExxonKnew campaign. The Great Republican Carbon Tax Myth Earlier this year I reported here and here for Breitbart News on the bizarre spectacle of various Republican elder statesmen-including Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz-campaigning to "combat climate change" by agitating for a carbon tax. Naturally the New York Times got very excited at the idea that conservatives were starting to see the light. The truth: there is next to zero support, anywhere within the GOP, for something as stupid and frankly socialistic as a carbon tax. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002238-00004 • During the 2016 Presidential campaign, every major Republican candidate with the exception of Lindsay Graham opposed a carbon tax • May 2016, prospective GOP nominee Donald Trump publicly d,_;'"c.:d..c;;J'd"'-=-" his opposition to a carbon tax in response to a news story • June 2016, House Republicans, led by Rep. Steve Scalise, === a resolution opposing a carbon tax • July of 2016, the RNC adopted changes to the Republican platform ~;;:;:::.:;;:.:;:= a carbon tax • 2016, state GOP parties began adopting resolutions in advance of the Cleveland Convention ~--a carbon tax • August 2016, candidate Donald Trump responded in writing to a candidate questionnaire =::..;::;.;:::= both a carbon tax and the concept of social cost of carbon So why does this zombie concept keep clawing its way out of the grave? Because, yet again, we're being played by the usual suspects: a handful of extremely well-funded lobbyists using their money and influence to give the impression of widespread, cross-party demand for what is in fact only the preoccupation of such paidup Green Blob members as Elon Musk. They planned this far in advance. This is clear from two leaked campaign documents dating back to 2015. One is from the National Wildlife Federation. Its strategy explicitly states that its plan is to co-opt conservatives into its carbon tax scheme: The Wind Energy Foundation, National Wildlife Federation (NWF), EDP Renewables North America (EDPR), Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. (RES), Pattern Energy, and Tesla Motors are working in a cross-sector coalition to enact a federal price on carbon pollution. We believe that a carbon tax or similar price on carbon pollution is achievable in Congress within five years as part of a grand political bargain on tax and fiscal policy. The key to this success will be the effective deployment of business and conservation leaders and their networks, who will create a non-threatening, non-ideological space for conservative decision makers to engage on climate policy. We anticipate that this campaign will be complemented with efforts in the political sphere to hold accountable those who are unresponsive to our network members or to defend those who are responsive. Note the presence of Tesla on this list Mr President-Elon Musk is not your friend! The other is another 2015 strategy document, floated among D.C. think tanks, created with the aim to "Engage Congress on Carbon Pricing." Again, the tactic used to achieve this was to reposition a carbon tax as an essentially free-market, pro-business solution in order to attract conservative support. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002238-00005 "Carbon Funded Tax Cuts" will stimulate GDP growth, create jobs, make U.S. companies more competitive in the global market place, make the tax system fairer, and result in dramatic climate change benefits. Did you see what they just did there? These people are sneaky. And the money for these campaigns-coordinated by think tanks and lobby groups like srr 0 e::n and .::.....::..;::=== in turn funneled via organizations like the =='- is the Energy Foundation giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to RStreet. it is donating $200,000 to another lobby group Niskanen. There's nothing illegal about this. Just something very dishonest and deliberately misleading. It's called Astroturfing. The Green Blob wants you to believe that, right now, there are a heap of disparate groups of sincere campaigners all of which just happen to share the same worthy and noble mission to combat climate change. Except they're really not. They're just a bunch of liberal sock puppets, bankrolled by plutocrats on a mission to allay their rich-guilt by splashing money on "saving the planet" and green industry rent-seekers who want to rig the market in favor of their renewable energy interests. This is not about saving the planet. This is about greed-and left-wing politics. If President Trump is to drain the swamp he must destroy the climate industrial complex. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002238-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 11/22/2017 6:55:56 PM This is what winning looks like: "Buyout stories: 'We are kind of being hollowed out"' HIT Roger Bezdek. Joe EPA Buyout stories: 'We are kind of being hollowed out' Published: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 Barbara Aldridge knew it was time to leave U.S. EPA. Now 64, she had worked at the agency for 26 years, restoring wetlands along the Gulf Coast and policing Superfund compliance. But Aldridge's husband died last year, and then the election ushered in the Trump administration - and a reckoning for EPA. "The change in direction at the agency has been demoralizing," Aldridge said. "The political climate was turning in a very bad direction." So Aldridge decided to tune out "distressing" news and focus on her future. She joined hundreds of EPA employees who accepted buyout packages this year. Her last day was Aug. 31. "The time was right for me personally," she said. Advertisement Aldridge accepted an offer from EPA's fiscal 2017 "early out" and buyout round, known formally as the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments, or VERA/VSIP, program. Approved by the Office of Personnel Management, the buyouts offered this summer are part of Administrator Scott Pruitt's efforts to reshape EPA and a greater Trump administration push to reorganize the entire federal government. Overall, 372 EPA employees took buyouts offered in this round, according to agency data obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act. Twenty-eight of those former employees, including Aldridge, once worked in the Region 6 office in Dallas. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002239-00001 Those buyouts could hinder the agency's operations, warned Clovis Steib, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 1003, which represents employees in the Dallas office. "We are going to have to do more with less," Steib said. "We are kind of being hollowed out from the inside." He added, "We are going to be able to hang a shingle on the outside of the building and still call it EPA, but we're not going to be able to still do what EPA used to do." While hundreds left EPA under this year's buyout program, the agency had proposed for many more to exit. It offered to buy out 1,227 positions during this latest round ( Climate wire, July 17). When asked about the criticism from those leaving the agency, EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman pointed to the majority of employees eligible for buyouts who decided to stay. "About 70 percent of people eligible for a buyout chose to stay at EPA under Administrator Scott Pruitt's leadership to refocus the agency on back to its core mission of providing Americans with clean air, land and water," Bowman said. But some regional offices took big hits. In Philadelphia-based Region 3, 40 employees left in the latest round. Twenty-nine employees left the Region 7 offices in Lenexa, Kan., while 28 employees in both Chicago's Region 5 and Dallas's Region 6 accepted offers. Employees in EPA program offices took buyouts as well, including 39 from enforcement, 29 from research and 25 from administration and resources management. Among cities where EPA employees work, Washington, D.C., easily saw the most leave the agency with at least 121, followed by Philadelphia at 33 and Chicago at 27. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002239-00002 'Political kerfuffle' Some decided to leave EPA with a bang. Lynda Deschambault, a trained chemist, had no plans to leave her post at the agency. She was a remedial project manager overseeing the cleanup of the abandoned Leviathan open-pit sulfur mine in California's Alpine County, a Superfund site. Yet her 20-year-career at the Region 9 office in San Francisco ended in August when she opted to take a buyout. In an Aug. 31 to her colleagues, Deschambault, 56, laid out the issues fueling her decision to leave, including concerns about unhealthy air quality at the San Francisco office and questions surrounding the agency's efforts to "streamline" the Superfund program and how doing so would affect her work at the Leviathan mine. Deschambault said programmatic cuts to the Superfund program had taken their toll and the agency has struggled to keep pace with a growing list of contaminated sites. When she asked management about Pruitt's efforts to "streamline" the program - and what that meant for her work at the Leviathan mine she was told to "strive for compromise and try to be as 'invisible as possible,"' according to her letter. Also on her mind was a desire to communicate more effectively on the issue of climate change. "On a philosophical level, the recent political pressures and bureaucracy have created an atmosphere that is at odds with our agency's stated mission," Deschambault wrote. "I fear that my talents, as well as those of many of my colleagues, will no longer be utilized in a positive manner and additional cuts will be experienced." EPA data indicate 11 employees in Region 9 took buyouts during this round, although there may have been a few more. Mark Sims, president of the EPA Unit of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 20, based in Region 9, said EPA management told him 16 workers there took buyouts. Sims said, "I'm sad to see the folks go." The union official also noted EPA's work still needed to be done. "For the people that leave, they are assigning their work to existing staff," Sims said. "I think it's a bad thing because it means the work is being done less effectively." Others at EPA who took buyouts felt more sanguine about leaving the agency. Brendan Doyle worked in EPA's research office, specifically as a senior adviser in the National Homeland Security Research Center. With 32 years of service at the agency, he had seen both Democratic and Republican administrations come and go. "I would say that 95 percent of EPA employees just come to work, put their hard hat on, want to feel like they are making a difference, and then go home," said Doyle, 66. "This political kerfuffle that is constantly going on at the top of the agency is very unfamiliar to them." Doyle took a buyout after having completed a major project and believing it was time for the younger SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002239-00003 generation to step up. "I felt with the incoming administration, I might be more helpful to let the next generation take over," Doyle said. Some employees leaving EPA had similar sentiments as Doyle. Joe Janczy, 52, who worked in Madison, Wis., to help oversee the state's drinking water program as part of the EPA Region 5 team, said he didn't want a younger person to lose his or her job if he remained. "By me staying on in my position, I might be eliminating an opportunity for a younger person to stay on," Janczy said. But Janczy, who spent 24 years at EPA, found out his position was later included on a list of jobs that would be eligible for a buyout. That was a surprise to him because he was told previously his slot would not be up for a buyout. That, along with consideration of proposed severe budget cuts for EPA, including ending its Great Lakes cleanup program, was enough foreshadowing for Janczy. "It didn't appear from the people being selected by the Trump administration that they were going to be favorable to decisions coming from the regulatory agency," he said. "The Scott Pruitts of the world, it all eventually trickles down. They select people of like mind, and it cascades down." One worry common among former EPA employees who took buyouts was who would do their work in their absence. The agency still has a hiring freeze in place, and it is not clear whether anyone new will be brought on to replace the departed. "I thought about my colleagues a lot who would have to pick up the slack," Aldridge said. "The work is going to have to be picked up by the rest of people in the group, especially the [National Environmental Policy Act] work." Janczy said his job may just move to another location. "My understanding is they are no longer going to have that position based in Wisconsin," he said. "They will have the position in Chicago like all the other state program managers." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002239-00004 'Workforce reshaping' More buyouts may be in EPA's future. Under the agency's fiscal 2018 budget justification, EPA proposes drawing $68.15 million from various program accounts for "workforce reshaping." The agency anticipates the need to offer again early out and buyout packages as well as pay for employees' relocation costs. The report for the House-passed funding legislation for EPA generally agrees with the agency's effort to streamline its workforce. The report for the Senate appropriations bill is also in favor of the initiative. Mike Mikulka, president of AFGE Local 704, which represents Region 5 employees, said although the House and Senate bills' funding cuts are not as deep as what was proposed by President Trump's budget plan, both pieces of legislation still target environmental programs and management. "When you are attacking staff salaries, do you have enough money in the budget to pay the people to keep them on board?" Mikulka said. "If there is not enough money to pay the payroll, they may have to do another buyout." John O'Grady, president of AFGE Council 238, which represents more than 9,000 EPA employees, said more buyouts are likely. O'Grady said EPA's overall intention appears to be decreasing staff, scaling back the agency's mission and pushing work onto states already facing tight budgets and slim staffing. "They're not being filled. We're down to 14 ,400-some people right now, that's down from 18,100 in 1999, and there's no intention to hire in new people," O'Grady said. "I believe they're going to scale back what the agency does in fact do and try to essentially foist it onto the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002239-00005 states," he said, adding they have their own budget problems. "There's not going to be as much environmental protection." But Pruitt might be looking to expand the agency's corps of law enforcement officers. "Under the Obama administration, EPA reduced the number of criminal enforcement agents from 206 to 157 - a 24 percent decrease," Bowman said. "Administrator Pruitt is committed to bringing those numbers back up to ensure that EPA has agents available to investigate environmental crimes." Still, future buyouts may be more attractive. Congress may sweeten the pot for federal employees wishing to take a buyout if it is offered. Legislation moving through the Senate would boost the buyout payment offered to workers. The bill, sponsored by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), would raise the cap on employees' incentive payments for buyouts from $25,000 to $40,000 as well as adjust the limit in accordance with the consumer price index. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed Lankford's bill by voice vote last month. Mikulka said a higher buyout payment would encourage more people to leave EPA. "If it gets up to $40,000, there may be more than 28 people taking the buyout, if it's offered," he said, referring to the number of Region 5 employees who took a buyout this last round. Beyond EPA Former agency employees who took buyouts have been staying busy since leaving EPA. Aldridge has focused on traveling and seeing her daughter and grandkids. Doyle has revived his landscape company and is also working with nonprofit groups, including as a volunteer for the Environmental Protection Network. Janczy is considering going back to school and plans to take a one-year hiatus from work. For now, "I'm just around the house, fixing up the house and getting ready for Thanksgiving," Janczy said. Deschambault, who's also a former mayor of Moraga, Calif., is focusing on the nonprofit she co-founded, the Contra Costa County Climate Leaders, or 4CL, and taking advantage of the holiday break to head off to Baja, Calif., to take part in a four-week Spanish immersion language course. Ultimately, Deschambault said, she hopes to land work in environmental education or advocacy, possibly working with teens or young college students. "Perhaps I can weld my 'out of EPA' job into my next career," she said. "I have to work; I was not prepared to retire. This was a reluctant choice to leave." Reporter Niina Heikkinen contributed. Twitter: (dKcvinBogardus Email: kbogardus((/:ccncws.nct SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002239-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 11/22/2017 6:13:16 PM A reply to NYT piece on how AGW requires communism Good reply to a piece I circulated earlier. Joe https:// evolutionnews.org/2017 /11/ environmentalism-is-increasingly-anti-human-proauthori tarian/ Environmentalism Is Increasingly Human, Pro- uthoritarian nti- Weslev J. SmUh Novcmbcr21,20l7, 10:51 AM The New York Times rarely publishes a guest op-ed piece with which its hard left-wing editors have a significant disagreement. That's what makes it a notable development to find, in that forum, a frontal attack on capitalism as the primary cause of environmental degradation and global warming. From "The Climate Crisis? It's Capitalism, Stupid," by Arizona State University's Benjamin Y. Fong: The real culprit of the climate crisis is not any particular form of consumption, production or regulation but rather the very way in which we globally produce, which is for profit rather than for sustainability. So long as this order is in place, the crisis will continue and, given its progressive nature, worsen. This is a hard fact to confront. But averting our eyes from a seemingly intractable problem does not make it any less a problem. It should be stated plainly: It 's capitalism that is at fault. As an increasing number of environmental groups are emphasizing, it's systemic change or bust. From a political standpoint, something interesting has occurred here: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002240-00001 Climate change has made anticapitalist struggle, for the first time in history, a non-classbased issue. So, those who have charged that "green is the new red" have it right. Which is odd, because the dirtiest economies have tended to be Communist ones, such as the old Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. When there is no democratic accountability or rule of law, the government can do what it wants. Those facts notwithstanding, Fong is explicitly pro-Communist: On the defensive for centuries, socialists have become quite adept at responding to objections from people for whom the basic functions of life seem difficult to reproduce without the motive power of capital. There are real issues here, issues that point to the opacity of sociability, as Bini Adamczak's recent book, "Communism for Kids," playfully explores. But the burden of justification should not fall on the shoulders of those putting forward an alternative. For anyone who has really thought about the climate crisis, it is capitalism, and not its transcendence, that is in need of justification. Socialism as an ideology is only about two hundred years old, but never mind. Environmentalism is becoming both anti-human - as I have written elsewhere pro-authoritarian economic control. Reader take warning. and Photo: Don't breathe! It's a smoggy day in Beijing, People's Republic of China, by (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.07, via Wikimedia Commons. l!lff Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002240-00002 Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002240-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Wanda Davis[WDavis@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Wed 11/22/2017 5:26:35 PM Happy Thanksgiving, and an update on The Patriot's Toolbox GW Posse members, You may be interested in the news release we plan to release next week regarding the new (fourth) edition of The Patriot's Toolbox. Please let my assistant, Wanda Davis, know if you'd like to see a PDF of Chapter 2, on Energy and Environment, or a free copy of the book. Joe Heartland Institute Offers One Hundred Principles for Restoring Freedom and Prosperity ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 27, 2017)-The Heartland Institute today announced the release of the fourth edition of The Patriot's Toolbox, offering "an agenda for incumbent office holders, a platform for candidates for public office, and a report card for civic and business leaders and journalists following the policy moves of the Trump administration, Congress, and state lawmakers." Coauthored and edited by Herbert Walberg, Ph.D. and Joseph L. Bast, with contributions from 18 other distinguished policy experts, the book covers ten of the most important topics being debated today: 1. Health Care 6. Firearms 2. Energy and Environment 7. Telecommunications 3. Elementary and Secondary Education 8. State Fiscal Policy SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00001 4. Higher Education 9. Federal Tax Policy 5. Privatization 10. Constitutional Reform Nearly 13,000 complimentary copies of the book were sent in November to influential audiences across the country, including every state elected official and member of Congress, thousands of civic and business leaders, and the media. More than 100,000 copies of the first three editions of The Patriot's Toolbox were distributed since 2010, making it one of the most widely circulated and influential books on public policy in the United States. The new edition is completely rewritten and thoroughly updated to reflect the events of 2016 and so far in 2017. The ten principles described in each of the ten chapters are identified below, followed by short biographies of the coauthors and contributors. The coauthors and many of the contributors are available for interviews. Please contact Heartland's media relations specialist, Billy Aouste, at baouste@heartland.org or 312/377-4000. The Heartland fnstitute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000. ### One Hundred Principles for Restoring Our Freedom and Prosperity Chapter 1: Health Care 1. Repeal and replace Obamacare. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00002 2. Reform Medicaid and Medicare. 3. Repeal existing regulations. 4. Expand health savings accounts. 5. Expand high-risk pools. 6. Encourage price transparency. 7. Expand the use of direct primary care programs. 8. Expand access to prescription drugs. 9. Remove regulatory barriers to medical innovation. 10. Reduce malpractice litigation expenses. Chapter 2: Energy and Environment 1. Global warming is not a crisis. 2. End the war on fossil fuels. 3. Hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is safe and beneficial. 4. National security requires affordable energy. 5. Energy self-sufficiency is achievable. 6. Air pollution is a fading challenge. 7. End subsides to alternative energy producers. 8. Biofuels cannot replace oil. 9. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards sacrifice lives for oil. 10. Replace the Environmental Protection Agency. Chapter 3: Elementary and Secondary Education SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00003 1. The rising tide of mediocrity. 2. Common Core was not the answer. 3. Allow parents to choose. 4. School choice programs work. 5. Avoid new regulations. 6. School choice benefits teachers. 7. Design guidelines for voucher programs. 8. Design guidelines for education savings accounts. 9. Design guidelines for charter schools. 10. Digital learning: The future of education? Chapter 4: Higher Education 1. Higher education in the United States isn't working. 2. Make students foot a larger share of the bill. 3. Promote free expression of ideas. 4. Increase transparency of costs and results. 5. Promote alternatives to college. 6. Emphasize instruction and raise academic standards. 7. Restructure university ownership and governance. 8. Revamp or eliminate federal student financial aid. 9. End destructive government regulation. 10. Reform or eliminate accreditation. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00004 Chapter 5: Privatization 1. Identify privatization opportunities. 2. Prepare a business case evaluation. 3. Create a privatization center of excellence. 4. Choose contractors on best value, not lowest price. 5. Use performance-based contracting. 6. Provide effective monitoring and oversight. 7. Bundle services for better value. 8. Prepare a real property inventory. 9. Divest non-core assets. 10. Make the case to the public. Chapter 6: Firearms 1. Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. 2. Bans on "assault weapons" are incoherent and self-defeating. 3. An increase in the number of guns does not lead directly to more gun crime. 4. Firearms possession among law-abiding citizens deters crime. 5. Defensive gun use saves lives. 6. Right to carry laws do not increase crime and may generate social benefits. 7. "Stand Your Ground" laws have been the historical norm in the United States. 8. The risk of firearms accidents is low and falling. 9. Large-scale illegal gun-running is a myth. 10. International experience does not support gun control in the United States. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00005 Chapter 7: Telecommunications 1. Don't mandate net neutrality. 2. Eliminate rules left over from the monopoly era. 3. Avoid municipal broadband projects. 4. Reform carrier oflast resort and build-out obligations. 5. Reform regulation of inter-carrier access charges and interconnection fees. 6. Repeal discriminatory taxes and fees on telecom services. 7. Prohibit the collection of sales taxes on online purchases that cross state lines. 8. Strengthen privacy and Fourth Amendment protections. 9. Prohibit government regulation of content. 10. Don't thwart expansion oflntemet applications and e-commerce. Chapter 8: State Fiscal Policy 1. Keep taxes low. 2. Avoid progressive income taxes. 3. Reduce reliance on excise taxes. 4. Create transparent and accountable budget processes. 5. Stop corporate welfare. 6. Remove regulatory barriers to prosperity. 7. Reform public pension and health care programs. 8. Fund school children, not schools. 9. Fix, don't expand, Medicaid. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00006 10. Cap taxes and expenditures. Chapter 9: Federal Tax Policy 1. Tax codes should be simple and understandable. 2. Collect taxes in the least invasive manner. 3. Make tax collection efficient. 4. Make the tax code stable and predictable. 5. Taxes should not be hidden from taxpayers. 6. The tax code should be neutral. 7. Taxes profoundly affect economic growth. 8. The broader the tax base, the better. 9. Everyone should pay the same income tax rate. 10. Perhaps it is time to repeal the income tax. Chapter 10: Constitutional Reform 1. The national government is out of control. 2. Constitutional reform is the solution. 3. Fear of a runaway convention is unfounded. 4. Choose amendments carefully. 5. Agree on convention procedures ahead of time. 6. Require Congress to balance its budget. 7. Consider the Compact approach. 8. Require congressional approval of major regulations. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002241-00007 9. Require due process for all administrative law proceedings. 10. States can refuse to enforce federal laws. Lead Authors and Contributors Herbert J. Walberg is distinguished visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and chief scientific advisor to the Center on Innovation and Improvement. Joseph L. Bast cofounded The Heartland Institute in 1984, served as president and CEO until July 2017, and currently is CEO. Vicki E. Alger is a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and author of the book Failure: The Federal Misedukation of America's Children. Timothy Benson is a policy analyst at The Heartland Institute. Roman Buhler is national director of the Madison Coalition. Joshua Distel is an executive assistant and office manager at the Buckeye Institute. Peter J. Ferrara is senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at The Heartland Institute and a senior fellow at the Social Security Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00008 George Gilder is chairman of Gilder Group, Inc. and a senior fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute. Leonard Gilroy is director of government reform at Reason Foundation. Matthew Glans is senior policy analyst for The Heartland Institute. Hance Haney is director and senior fellow of the Technology & Democracy Project at the Discovery Institute. Adrian Moore is vice president of policy at Reason Foundation. Isaac Orr is a research fellow for energy and environment policy at The Heartland Institute. Daniel J. Pilla is a tax litigation consultant and executive director of the Tax Freedom Institute, a national association of tax professionals. Publius is a professor at a United States university. Justin Strehle is completing a master's degree in financial economics from Ohio University. Austill Stuart is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation. James M. Taylor is president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation and a senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00009 Steven Titch is a journalist-turned-policy analyst focusing on tele-communications, internet, and information technology. Richard Vedder is distinguished professor of economics emeritus at Ohio University and founding director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. The coauthors and many of the contributors are available for interviews. Please contact Heartland's media relations specialist, Billy Aouste, at baouste@heartland.org or 312/377-4000. The Heartland fnstitute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002241-00010 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 11/22/2017 3:18:54 PM Daily Caller: The Real Story Behind The Heartland lnstitute's Role In The Trump Admin Friends, We decided to respond to some of the lies and misinformation spread by PBS, Huffington Post, and Washington Post and to put forth our side of the story by granting an interview request by Michael Bastasch (no relation!) with the Daily Caller. The result is the article below that ran yesterday. We're grateful to Bastasch for writing an accurate article and to our friends at Daily Caller for running it. Others disagree, but I've always felt it is better to stay focused on our plans for new publications, events, and other educational efforts rather than to waste time and energy trying to correct the legacy media's lies. You really can't do both well, and fewer and fewer people read and believe what the legacy media say anyway, so why repeat their lies? Joe http:/ /dailycaller.com/2017 /11 /21 /the-real-sto y-behind-the-heartland-institutes-role-in-the-trumpadmin/?utm content=buffere023f&utm medium=social&utm source=twitter.com&utm campaign=buffer The Real Story Behind The Heartland lnstitute's Role In The Trump Admin MICHAEL BASTASCH Have you read The Washington Post lately? If so, you probably read about a "fringe" group of global warming deniers working behind the scenes to push President Donald Trump's administration ever farther to the right. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002242-00001 WaPo depicted the conservative Heartland lnstitute's November meeting in Houston, Texas, as full of activists unhappy with the Trump administration's progress on undoing liberal climate policies. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensinq@dailycallemewsfoundation.org. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/3 77 -4000 Email jbast@iJheartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002242-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/21/2017 11 :21 :48 PM Have you submitted comments on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan? Thousands of low-information environmentalists have posted one or two paragraph long comments screaming and howling, so your comments don't have to be long or footnoted. Surely, the administration would appreciate a few raisins in the oatmeal saying "absolutely! Repeal the Clean Power Plan as fast and as completely as possible!" The deadline for comments is January 16. With the holidays fast approaching, now is a good time to start writing. Don't wait until the deadline. Is anyone planning to attend the public hearing next week (November 28-29) in Charleston, West Virginia? Let me know if you plan to be there, and we may be able to hook you up with some friends and allies. Things could get unruly. Joe From: Dewey, Amy ===='....l'..:.!..===="""-J Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11 :32 AM Subject: EPA Announces Public Hearing on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan EPA Announces Public Hearing on SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002244-00001 Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan Hearing will be held November 28-29 in Charleston, WV WASHINGTON (November 2, 2017)- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold a public hearing on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan in Charleston, WV on November 28-29, 2017. All persons wanting to speak are encouraged to register in advance. "The EPA is headed to the heart of coal country to hear from those most impacted by the CPP and get their comments on the proposed Repeal Rule. The agency looks forward to hearing from all interested stakeholders," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. What: Public hearing on proposed repeal of the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (commonly known as the Clean Power Plan). When: November 28-29, 2017. The hearing will convene each day 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. If the EPA receives a high volume of requests, we may continue the public hearing to November 30, 2017. The EPA may also hold an additional hearing to be announced at a later date. See the website for updates about the hearing. Where: West Virginia Capitol Complex, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, Charleston, West Virginia 25305. Contact: Registration information will be posted at: https://www.epa.gov/stationa y-sources-airollution/electric-utili - eneratin -units-re ealin -clean- ower- Ian Pre-registration to provide an oral presentation will begin when the notice is published in the Federal Register and close on November 16, 2017. People will be contacted about speaking slots via email starting on November 17, 2017. Oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing will be considered with the same weight as written statements and supporting information submitted during the public comment period. Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment period, which has been extended to January 16, 2018. Comments should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355 and may be submitted by one of the methods listed on the Clean Power Plan Proposed Repeal: How to Comment web page. Background: Soon after the previous Administration issued the Clean Power Plan in 2015, 150 entities including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 rural electric co-ops, and three labor unions challenged the CPP, highlighting a range of legal and technical concerns. A few months later, the United States Supreme Court stayed the CPP, immediately halting implementation-the first time the Supreme Court had ever issued a stay to block the enforcement of a regulation. On March 28, 2017, Administrator Pruitt signed a notice indicating the EPA's intent to review the Clean Power Plan, in accord with the President's Energy Independence Executive Order. On October 16, the EPA proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan, proposing that it is not consistent with the Clean Air Act. EPA is now taking comment on that proposal and has extended the public comment period to January 16, 2018. More information about the public hearing, and the proposed rulemaking can be found online. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002244-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 12/21/201711:31:53 PM One more: Paul Driessen on ANWAR I love these pieces because they reflect the pivot from debating climate science to making the case for more energy freedom. Merry Christmas! Joe http://www.foxnews.com/ opinion/2017 /12/21/tax-bill-opens-alaska-to-oil-production-worthbillions-dollars-strengthening-america.html Tax bill opens Alaska to oil production worth billions of dollars, strengthening America By Paul Driessen An important provision of the tax cut legislation passed by Congress this week allows the American people to finally benefit from abundant petroleum resources that experts predict will be found in a very small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on Alaska's northern coast. The legislation directs the Interior Department to hold at least two lease sales over the next 10 years, for a maximum of 2,000 acres opened to drilling. Analysts say the sales could fetch as much as $2.2 billion. ANWR is enormous - 19 million acres, about the size of South Carolina. The 2,000 acres along the coastal plain that would actually be disturbed by drilling, roads and other development work account for about one-hundredth of 1 percent of the vast area. The narrow coastal plain affected by the legislation contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil, says Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who chairs of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This could produce about 1 million barrels of oil each day, amounting to about 20 percent of daily U.S. oil production, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. And there's a good chance the petroleum potential of the area where drilling would be allowed is even higher. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002245-00001 The U.S. Geological Survey and Congressional Research Service say it's 95 percent likely that there are 15.6 billion barrels of oil beneath ANWR. With today's prices and tracking technology, up to 60 percent of that oil may be recoverable. At $50 a barrel, all that oil represents $460 billion that we will not have to send to other countries to buy foreign oil. It also represents tens of billions of dollars in royalty and tax revenues to Alaska and the U.S. government. And opening up a tiny part of ANWR for our energy industry will create thousands of jobs in oilfield, manufacturing and many other sectors. After overall tax revenue collected by the Internal Revenue Service, oil and gas royalty payments represent the single largest contribution to the U.S. Treasury. Companies that extract oil from federal onshore and offshore leases pay royalties of up to 18 percent of wellhead prices. They then pay corporate taxes on profits and sales taxes at the pump. Workers pay income taxes, instead of receiving unemployment and welfare checks. Every step in the leasing, drilling, production and pipeline process will require extensive environmental reviews. Unfortunately, each step will likely generate lawsuits. As they have for some four decades, activists continue to claim drilling would destroy the entire ANWR area's wilderness character and threaten its caribou, polar bears, birds and other wildlife. That is a completely false narrative. To claim the minimal impact on 2,000 acres of a 19-million acre refuge will despoil the entire refuge is like saying an airport on North Carolina's northern border would ruin scenery and kill wildlife throughout the state. The potentially oil-rich area of ANWR is actually flat, treeless tundra, 50 miles from the beautiful Brooks Range mountains that feature so prominently and deceptively in Sierra Club and other anti-drilling campaigns. During some eight months of winter, when drilling will take place, virtually no wildlife are present. Food is buried under snow and ice, and temperatures plummet as low as 40 below zero Fahrenheit. The tundra turns rock solid. The harsh winter conditions mean drilling can be done using airstrips, roads and drill pads that are all constructed with ice and snow. Come spring, all of this will melt, leaving only puddles, little holes and a few permanent facilities. The caribou will return - just as they have for years at the nearby Prudhoe Bay and Alpine oilfields - and do what they always have done: eat, hang out and make babies. In fact, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield's Central Arctic caribou herd has over 20,000 of the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002245-00002 animals today, compared to just 5,000 in 1975. Arctic fox, geese, shore birds and other wildlife also return each spring, along with giant mosquitoes. Each drill pad will support multiple wells. Modern "directional drilling" technologies will allow companies to punch holes a mile deep and five miles long in any direction, steering drill bits to penetrate multiple oil zones and hit targets the size of basketball courts - or even backboards. Coupled with the ability to fracture rock formations and stimulate them to produce far more oil and natural gas liquids than previously possible, this accuracy means that the 2,000-acre footprint could produce up to 15 billion gallons of petroleum annually. That's far better than producing 15 billion gallons of ethanol annually from corn grown on an area larger than Iowa: 36 million acres. Ethanol is produced via a process that also requires massive amounts of water, pesticides, fertilizers and fossil fuels to create fuel that gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline. Inuit natives who live in or near ANWR have supported drilling by an 8-to-1 margin. They no longer want to live in poverty - after having given up their traditional land claims for oil rights that Congress, greens, presidents and courts have repeatedly denied them. Gwich'in Indians have opposed ANWR drilling, and some were paid by environmentalist groups to appear in anti-drilling commercials. However, they actually live hundreds of miles away - and leased many of their own tribal lands to generate revenue. Their leased areas were close to a major migratory path, where caribou often give birth to their calves before arriving in ANWR. No oil was found. Drilling in ANWR will also ensure sufficient production to keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in operation. Right now, declining North Slope production threatens to reduce oil in the pipeline to a point where it cannot stay sufficiently warm to flow under months-long winter conditions. The pipeline needs between 250,000 and 350,000 barrels of oil per day to stay open. If there are inadequate supplies, because ANWR or other deposits are not developed, the pipeline will be shut down - leaving m iilions of barrels and billions of dollars behind and destroying jobs. ANWR's energy belongs to all Americans. It can and should be produced safely, to generate tremendous oil, gas, job, revenue and other bounties - in yet another huge benefit from this tax reform legislation. Paul Driessen is senior policyanalyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death" and other books on the environment. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002245-00003 Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002245-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 12/21/2017 11 :09:56 PM "The war on coal is a war on the environment and the poor" More excellent messaging from Tom Harris. Joe Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017 /dec/20/the-war-on-coal-is-a-war-on-theenvironment-and-th/ The war on coal is a war on the environment and the poor By Bryan Leyland and Tom Harris Wednesday, December 20, 2017 Former Vice President Al Gore should have used this month's "24 Hours of Reality" internet broadcast to encourage the Trump administration to withdraw all carbon-dioxide emission rules on future power stations. Then the United States could replace its old, inefficient coal-fired power plants with modern, clean, efficient coal stations, just as they are doing in Europe, India and China. One of the most damaging legacies of the Obama administration's "war on coal" was the creation of a 2015 rule that limits carbon-dioxide emissions on new coal-fired stations to 1,400 pounds per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. When releasing the new rule, entitled "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that it "is the performance achievable by a [supercritical pulverized coal] unit capturing about 20 percent of its carbon SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002246-00001 pollution." This makes no sense. Besides the fact that carbon dioxide is plant food and so the very opposite of pollution, the technology of carbon-dioxide capture on a full-scale power plant is still a technological fantasy. In fact, the agency was banning even the most modern, very efficient, supercritical coal-fired stations because their carbon-dioxide emissions are at least 20 percent above the EPA limit. Considering that America has 22.1 percent of the world's proven coal reserves, the greatest of any country and enough to last for 381 years at current consumption rates, it is a tragedy that the U.S. can no longer build new, clean, coal-fired power stations to replace its aging fleet of coal plants. Supercritical power plants operate at very high temperatures and pressures, resulting in significantly greater efficiencies than older technologies. Supercritical stations burn less coal per megawatt-hour produced and so benefit the environment and the electricity consumer. A modern, highly efficient, supercritical coal-fired station with stack gas cleanup is very clean indeed, essentially emitting only water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The stack gas cleanup removes virtually all of the sulfur dioxide and the nitrous oxide, the real pollutants. The only thing it discharges that could be called a pollutant is the ash, and this is not difficult to contain if it is done properly. Supercritical stations are now being built across the world, but not in the U.S. due to Mr. Obama's misguided rule limiting carbon dioxide from future power stations. Clearly, that rule must be next on the chopping block after President Trump has done away with the Clean Power Plan. As in past years, Mr. Gore used his marathon internet broadcast to promote unreliable wind and solar power, sources that are many times more expensive than coal. Testifying on Nov. 28 at the EPA's public hearing on the withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan in Charleston, W.Va., Robert E. Murray, president and CEO of Murray Energy Corp., explained, "Electricity from coal generation typically costs 4 cents per kilowatthour. Renewable source generation costs 26 cents per kilowatt-hour, and it receives subsidies of 4 cents per kilowatt-hour from the taxpayers." Renewables also benefit from free backup and many other advantages paid for by the consumer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002246-00002 Wherever coal is phased out and wind and solar power are promoted, massive electricity price rises occur because of the wind and solar subsidies and the high cost of providing backup power when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Ontario, Canada is a good example. Ontario was once an industrial powerhouse and the home of hundreds of thousands of well-paid manufacturing jobs. But the province lost many of these jobs in the last decade-and-a-half when companies either went bankrupt or left Ontario. This happened largely because its electricity prices have increased over 200 percent since 2002. Tom Adams, independent energy researcher and former board member of the Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator explains, "The root cause of Ontario's power rate cancer started with the coal phase-out" In the name of 'stopping climate change," the province shut down all of its inexpensive coal plants, which in 2002 provided about 25 percent of Ontario's electricity. Yet, the province emits only 0.5 percent of world carbon-dioxide emissions, so even if these emissions mattered, the sacrifice was worthless. The fact that the Ontario government spent billions of dollars erecting about 8,000 industrial wind turbines only made matters worse. In a report co-authored with University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, Mr. Adams concluded, "Solar and wind systems provide just under 4 percent of Ontario's power but account for about 20 percent of the average commodity cost." When speaking at Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's 2013 news conference announcing her government's Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, Mr. Gore said, "Ontario has become the first regional jurisdiction in all of North America to take these steps on the burning of coal. Congratulations, Ontario, and thank you, Ontario. We can solve [the climate crisis] but we need to get busy and follow Ontario's lead." Electricity market expert University of Montreal professor Pierre-Olivier Pineau said, "Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world." And this is a major reason SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002246-00003 why Ontario is now a "have not" province that receives payments from Canada's national equalization fund designed to help poorer provinces provide adequate services. Mr. Gore should be asked: Who will bail out the U.S. if indeed it does follow Ontario's lead? Bryan Leyland is an Auckland, New Zealand-based consulting engineer and the founding secretary and energy issues adviser of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Tom Harris is the executive director of ICSC. Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) 28 Tiverton Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6L5 Canada 613- 728-9200 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002246-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 12/21/2017 8:53:11 PM Australia is Now the Home of the World's Largest Battery ... ... which generates as much energy as the world's largest ball of string. Let's hope people don't need more than ONE HOUR of power when the wind dies down. Australia is Now the Home of the World's Largest Battery GineersNow The farm has 99 wind turbines and is able to generate electricity which can be stored in the battery to serve 30,000 people for around an hour. As of now, the bulk of Australia's electricity is still generated by coal, and the nation is one of the world's worst per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. Hopefully, this battery will be the start of many efforts to help the country to switch to renewable energy. Read more at: https://gineersnow.com/industries/australia-now-home-worlds-largestbattery Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002247-00001 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 0000224 7-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 9/13/2017 7:13:55 PM Tom Harris and ICSC had an extrordinary month Friends, Tom Harris sends us monthly reports on his efforts to get positive public attention to climate realize. He is amazingly effective at it, as his latest report shows. Because Tom is in Canada he is not a tax-exempt 50l(C)(3), but we are happy to make grants to him equal to contributions we receive earmarked for the ICSC. Let me know if you are interested, thank you to those who contributed when I sent out an appeal a couple months ago. Joe From: tom.harris@climatcscicnceintcmational.net [mailto:tom.harris@ climatcscicnceintcmational.nct] Sent: September 11, 2017 8:58 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: August 2017 summary paragraph Hi Jim, Below is the ICSC summary para for August. I CC Joe and Diane since some of the numbers (in red) are unusual this month: Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), has spent the past 15 years actively promoting a realistic approach to climate change and our energy supplies. In recent years, he has employed a nonpartisan strategy to bring public attention to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Reconsidered series in media from across the political spectrum, particularly in the United States. Mr. Harris makes extensive use of Twitter, Facebook (now 4,213 'friends'), Linkedln, and Google Plus, posting several times a day to these social media. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002248-00001 In August 2017, ICSC had 121 opinion articles published (all but nine in the U.S.): •====== one piece (with Dr. Tim Ball) was published on the USA Today home page and then reproduced in 77 newspapers in the USA Today Network on August I and 3; •====== a different piece (with Dr. Madhav Khandekar) was published on the USA Today home page and then reproduced in 12 newspapers in the USA Today Network on August 27; •CCCCCC 30 OpEds were also published outside of the USA Today network. In August, ICSC had five letters to the editor published in newspapers (all in the U.S.) and was cited in one editorial in the month (in Canada). Mr. Harris was interviewed five times on radio (four of which were in the U.S.) and was cited in two news releases (both from Heartland). ICSC created three YouTube videos in August 2017, all of which were based on the audios of ICSC radio interviews. Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) 613-728-9200 Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002248-00002 Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002248-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Willie Soon[romeosoon@gmail.com] Joseph Bast Tue 11/21/2017 4:47:13 PM Ian Flanigan essay in honor of Bob Carter, and request for your help Willie Soon forwarded the article below by Ian Flanigan, which recreates an excellent graph comparing temperature records to CO2 levels for the past 11,000 years based on the work of the late and great Bob Carter. Willie also asks for help to correct Wikipedia's "the rather sickening mislabeling of Bob lifetime dedication and works as to 'promote climate change denial."' Please write to Willie if you can help fix the Wikipedia page. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002249-00001 _.> ENVIRONMENT C by Dr Ian Ftantpn 1lie Gon~rnmthesis must bei:1ml>i~tent with aUof the aYailabledata, It takes onlv t!fal1itie&and thi!. is whv the sden,e i.snever "'settled~ · One must begin byassemhlingaliof the available data. 'lhc data we a,-cconi.:crncd with in this ii;sue are the temperature and atmospheric ,arbon-dioxide data. ·rhe temperature rfear that it would be the temptr~turt' rernrd to be inferred, loudly dt•nmu\Cl't:1 and ridkuk>das being 'I his may be done from .~u~htedmiqut:'> in denial .1bout'the harmful effects that as the measurement of isotope ratios in our emis.sions. of \'.arhon dioxick wt:rc gas samples extr.icted from ice cores.and se.i~d cores. suppost"dto~ having on the dimatc-.. ln doing!-,(>, the Coalition allowed the totalitanan !<:"ftto define the tccnns of the dd)alt,• Hui, kt us do t.hc impcrmi:.· sible and k•ok at the scic.-n,ebehind the que~tion of wht:thc:r carbon dioxide is L~ing these proxy sources of temperatmc dala, scientists have bc·en able to n:·constrm:t the tempt~rature hbtory of the planet going back thousands to huudred~ of thousands. of ,·cars an.i~ and the ent in the-air owr tho/>CperioJ.,_ alternative h}lM:)thesb. ·menull hyp(}th- Figure J shows one c-x.,unpleof data c:-~hk!.ts the most ohviou!'>explanation: derived from such proxy sources. 'fhe top pand of the figure shows a dcdining temp<"rature trend over the 8,000-vear to bear on the is.sue. period fmm t.hc I Ioloccnc Climate In the context ot global warming, Op~imum to the modern warm period the null hvpolhe,i.\ is t.hal lhc warming (lctt hand scale:). It a.lso ihow!\ that this observem11;.,inm Rnth h\-nt,th.--.,., mn ..t h,• l The superimposition (lf the temper- and the altc•rnative hypothesi!;te:m,the new theory that the scientist is bringing SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002249-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Seithtr tht' ,ooling trend nor the \'.'ydic behaviour of temperature is reflected in the carhon•diox.ide (('Cord in the lower panel..TI1en.-fort,arbon dioxide c,mnot lx- ..:ausing thl' oh~n·1.-important to recognise that no single data set is ideal.,.All.t\·ailablc<). We simpl} ob~n'e that the data arc s.em to be wmbtent with the nuU hypothesh that thC' modern wanning is due to natural ,ausc:S..and in~onsb,knt with the alternative hypothe-is that this warming is due to carbon dioxide. We do not n~ed t.o understand the details oi the. in making the ,asc thal ,arbon dioxide i~ cau1'ingJan global w,trming are the data from rumental mctcoro• logkal re,ord. Over the ! 67 •·year pt:ri()d last 100vears is due to irKre. dioxide inthe atmosphen.•. ( based on thec,ed.ita alone a1 worthless,. "(he main limitation of t Hgure l is that they art' de ice wus at ;1 singlt' to,ation theri~fore be ,onsidcn..>ti ti the "global average" tempe the mt'teorologkal rc,ord , apprrncirnate. "lhis does not these data GIO be disregard< evidrn,e from a vast rang" that the w,t.rming .:ydcs 01 amon8 them tht~ Mi:diae Periofglobal-w.uming policy; Instead, tht Liberal Party continued to with the issue while the m,1hs ;ehc!Oili:S associated with global warming took hold and green ideology took the moral high ground in professing to be intent on sa\ing the planet from "carbon pollution.. and the dangerou:r,globalwam1ingit wasalleged toc:ause. I\f.akolmTurnbull enteredP-arliamcnl in the same \.Taras Dr Jensen and, in th<' biggest ~1istake of his car«r. Mr Howard in 2007 placed the left-le-aning SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Turnbull in cha~ of Environmentand Watc1·Resources, presumablyto give his C!n\;ronmentpolicies some "sreen CTe· dentials~ The opportunity to tack.le the global-warming falsehoodsand develop a rational energypolicywas thereby loit. lhe election of Donald Trump to the presidency of tmUnited States and his rejection of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, however, provide thl" Australian Government with an opportunity to admit its mistake and change dir«tion warming and energy pohc gi\-eitstlf a d1an.ccof snatching vktory from the Jawsof defeat at the next dection. Jt needs to find a leader who can tackle this issue head on C'nceas evidence and dis.mis will not pmpc~rlydeal \\ith t objections to th<'globa1-wa sensus" position. I beliC\/Cit i.,.the on),.. wa, GUl be saYedfrom the high'1 that are crippling our ind punishing household budg ing ilrong ~upport to Presi• on this issue might even bt around this insanity globaJJ the auilability of cheap • power to lift unJerdevtlOJ out of the poverty that curl'! them access to electridtv .. and sanitation. , in the face of the furiou~ o ition that it will encounter fr,1,mthe ' and the re~t of the media, academia. the bureau- cracies,and ,·ested int.erestsin the sdentific and renewableenergy industric.-s .. It.wiUbe a fight.but it is a fight that can only !J;thtfr,,Jmwithtn government and not fmm opposition. It is only when you control the appointments and the purse stringJtthat it is possible to challenge those pre~nting pseudo-sci- ED_001389A_00002249-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/21/2017 4:07:40 PM NYT: Communism is the cure to global warming HIT Roger Bezdek, who says "You really cannot make this stuff up!" He's right. And a note to physicists getting this email: it's not about the science for these guys and gals, it never was. &modulc=o inion-cco1-right-rcgion®ion=opinion-c-co1-ri8.h.1:ITgion&WT.nav=opinion-c-co1-rigb.1.:rcgion Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002250-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/21/2017 2:22:23 PM Lamar Smith: MIT Study Linking Hurricane Harvey Rainfall To Climate Change Is Alarmist Bunk http://dailycaller.com/2017 /11 /20/bad-science-an-mit-study-lin harvey-rainfall-to-climate-change-is-alarm ist-bu nk/ king-hurricane- Daily Caller 11/20/2017 BAD SCIENCE: An MIT Study Linking Hurricane Harvey Rainfall To Climate Change Is Alarmist Bunk Posted By Rep. Lamar Smith 11/20/2017 An article published last week by The Daily Caller, entitled "Here's The Inconvenient Truth Behind MIT's Study Linking Hurricane Harvey to Global Warming," rightly exposes the major flaws in a newly-published Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate change study. The MIT study attempts to attribute rainfall during Hurricane Harvey to climate change. As expected, media outlets are sensationalizing the findings of the study without checking the facts. The result is a continuation of the alarmist climate rhetoric we have seen for years. Many of the extreme weather events cited by the media have no link to climate change. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002251-00001 This hurricane season has been no different. For instance, Hurricane Harvey was portrayed in the media as a deadly consequence of a warming climate. However, the facts are that this just isn't the case. When looking at historical data for hurricanes affecting the United States, the data shows no trend over time. The United States recently experienced one of its longest hurricane "droughts" in modern history, spanning a decade since a major hurricane made landfall. Likewise, flooding has been found to have no correlation to climate change. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found in its latest report that there is a lack of scientific evidence pertaining to floods and thus it has low confidence regarding any trends in magnitude or frequency of floods on a global scale. The story is the same for many indicators of extreme weather, such as tornadoes and drought. The data does not support the claims often made in the media, yet this does not stop journalists from using alarmist rhetoric to gain a larger readership. Scientists should look to trends before making dire predictions about extreme weather, but the trends show no link to climate change. Basing a hypothesis on flawed reasoning and assumptions goes against the scientific method. These types of practices are all too common today. Scientists should instead adhere to sound science that is based on the core principles of the scientific method. These principles will steer scientists in the right direction. Assuming an outcome with no supporting evidence will not. While the media will continue to report unfounded claims about climate change, the facts don't lie. Thank you for continuing to shine a light on one-sided reporting that our national media practices far too often. Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, has represented Texas's 21st congressional district since 1987. He is currently the chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002251-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/20/2017 5:29:59 PM Will Happer interview reprint available Friends, Some of you recall that TheBestSchools.org published a fascinating interview with Prof Will Happer last December. We obtained permission to produce a reprint of the interview. You can download it as a PDF using the link below. If you want copies of it. .. a really nice full-color and center-stitched version ... watch your mail if you a Heartland donor, or ask me for copies. Below is the website feature we created for this publication. Joe WILLIAM HAPPER INTERVIEW: FOCUSED CIVIL DIALOGUE ON GLOBAL WARMING DECEMBER 1, 2016 By William Happer Download the PDF This is a reprintof an absolutelyremarkable interview,conductedby TheBestSchools.org,with physicistWilliam Happer, Ph.D., one of the most prestigiousclimate scientistsin the world. The interview was conducted in December 2016. TheBestSchools.org is "an independent organization comprised of a dedicated group of educators, editors, authors, and web professionals who-like you-believe learning transforms lives for the better and should remain a lifelong pursuit." TBS posted the interview online here. Dr. Happer notes in response to one question: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002252-00001 Government actions to combat the non-existent problem have blighted the landscape with windmills and solar farms. They have driven up the price of electricity, which has disproportionately harmed the poorest segments of society. Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results. It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem. (p. 15) Dr. Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) at Princeton University, former director of the Office of Energy Research, former director of research at the U.S. Department of Energy, and co-founder of Magnetic Imaging Technologies. He is also cofounder and chairman of the CO2 Coalition, the website of which is co2coalition.org. He summarizes the interview this way: Strongest arguments against consensus view: •· Climate models have predicted far more warming than has been observed, as shown in Fig. 6. This is strong evidence that the equilibrium temperature increases from doubling CO2 levels is not 3° C to 3.5° C, as assumed in most climate models, but much less, probably close to 1° C. •· The consensus has largely ignored the huge positive effects of more CO2, as illustrated in Fig. 18. •· The large temperature changes of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occurred before the widespread use of fossil fuels after the industrial revolution, as shown in Fig. 11. •· There is a strong correlation of temperature with solar activity as shown in Fig. 12, 14, and 15. •· Frenzied, ad hominem attacks on credible opponents show that consensus supporters have a very weak scientific case. You don't need potentially counterproductive ad hominem attacks if you have strong scientific arguments. Weakest arguments for consensus view: •· Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree with the consensus. •· Temperature has increased for the past century and CO2 levels have increased. Therefore the temperature increase was caused by CO2. •· Increasing CO2 •· Government funded, consensus-supporting researchers have no conflict of interest. •· Scientific opponents of the consensus are prostitutes of the evil fossil fuel industry. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002252-00002 Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002252-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 4/2/2018 7:05:03 PM Today's WSJ: Climate Alarmists Lose in San Francisco Courtroom Dear Friends, This is a follow up to the email from this morning. For those of you who have trouble accessing Phelim's climate trial OpEd in the Wall Street Journal, please see below: Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind They likened a courtroom 'tutorial' to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But their side got schooled. By Phelim McAleer San Francisco Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v. Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a "public nuisance" by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.No trial date has been set, but on March 21 the litigants gathered for a "climate change tutorial" ordered by Judge William Alsup-a prospect that thrilled climate-change alarmists. Excited spectators gathered outside the courtroom at 6 a.m., urged on by advocates such as the website Grist, which declared "Buckle up, polluters! You're in for it now," and likened the proceeding to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. In the event, the hearing did not go well for the plaintiffs-and not for lack of legal talent. Steve W. Berman, who represented the cities, is a star trial lawyer who has made a career and a fortune suing corporations for large settlements, including the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998. "Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth," Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist. The hearing did mark a shift toward accountability-but perhaps not in the way activists would have liked. Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintiffs' first witness, Oxford SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002253-00001 physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a "genius," but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures. Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge's simple query: "What do you think caused the last Ice Age?" The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth's orbit and went on to describe a period "before there were humans on the planet," which "we call hothouse Earth." That was when "all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic," Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today. Mr. Griggs then recounted "a period called 'snow ballers,"' when scientists "think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean." Bear in mind these accounts of two apocalyptic climate events that occurred naturally came from a witness for plainti s looking to prove American oil companies are responsible for small changes in present-day climate. The defendants' lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., emphasized the littlediscussed but huge uncertainties in reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the failure of worst-case climate models to pan out in reality. Or as Judge Alsup put it "Instead of doom and gloom, it's just gloom." Mr. Boutrous also noted that the city of San Francisco-in court claiming that rising sea levels imperil its future-recently issued a 20-year bond, whose prospectus asserted the city was "unable to predict whether sea level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur." Judge Alsup was particularly scathing about the conspiracy claim. The plainti s alleged that the oil companies were in possession of "smoking gun" documents that would prove their liability; Mr. Boutrous said this was simply an internal summary of the publicly available 1995 IPCC report. The judge said he read the lawsuit's allegations to mean "that there was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner. And I said: 'OK, that's going to be a big thing. I want to see it.' Well, it turned out it wasn't quite that. What it was, was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more. So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that document, but it's hard to say that they were secretly aware. By that point they knew. Everybody knew everything in the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002253-00002 IPCC," he stated. Judge Alsup then turned to Mr. Berman: "If you want to respond, I'll let you respond .... Anything you want to say?""No," said the counsel to the plainti s. Whereupon Judge Alsup adjourned the proceedings. Until now, environmentalists and friendly academics have found a receptive audience in journalists and politicians who don't understand science and are happy to defer to experts. Perhaps this is why the plainti s seemed so ill-prepared for their first court outings with tough questions from an informed and inquisitive judge. Activists have long claimed they want their day in court so that the truth can be revealed. Given last week's poor performance, they may be the ones who inherit the wind. Mr. McAleer is a journalist, playwright and filmmaker. He is currently writing a play about Chevron Corp.'s legal fight over alleged pollution in Ecuador. ~ Copyright© 2018 Ann and Phelim Media LLC, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email as part of Ann and Phelim public outreach. You may have signed up on our website or through social media. Feel free to unsubscribe if you don't want to hear from Ann and Phelim. Our mailing address is: Ann and Phelim Media LLC 11271 Ventura Blvd. Suite #482 Studio City, CA 91604 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002253-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 4/2/2018 5:16:04 PM A whole booklet about the fake AGW consensus! Willie sends along the attached, which is also available at this link: https://www. climatechangecommun ication .org/wp-content/u ploads/2018/03/Consensus _Handbook-1 .pdf Of course it's awful, completely unresponsive to challenges many of us have put forward over and over again to the fake claim of an AGW consensus. The good news is that they felt compelled to produce this ... evidence that we are on target. Bad news is that some people will see this and believe it. Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002254-00001 jg, >3ng 00052250001 Written by: John Cook, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University Sander van der Linden, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge Edward Maibach, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF University of CAMBRIDGE BRISTOL First published in March, 2018. For more information, visit http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/consensus-handbook/ Graphic design: Wendy Cook Page 21 image credit: John Garrett Cite as: Cook, J., van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). The Consensus Handbook. DOl:10.13021/G8MM6P. Available at http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/consensus-handbook/ SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00002 •• • Introduction Basedon the evidence,97% of climatescientistshaveconcluded that human-causedclimatechangeis happening.Thisscientific consensus hasbeena hot topic in recentyears.It'sbeen referencedby presidents,primeministers,senators,congressmen, and in numerous televisionshowsand newspaperarticles. However, the story of consensus goes back decades. It's been an underlying theme in climate discussions since the 1990s. Fossil fuel groups, conservative think-tanks, and political strategists were casting doubt on the consensus for over a decade before social scientists began studying the issue. From the 1990s to this day, most of the discussion has been about whether there is a scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. As the issue has grown in prominence, a second discussion has arisen. Should we even be talking about scientific consensus? Is it productive? Does it distract from other important issues? This handbook provides a brief history of the consensus on climate change. We'll summarize the research quantifying the level of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming. We'll examine what the public thinks about the consensus, and the misinformation campaigns that have sought to confuse people. We'll look at how we should respond to misinformation and how best to communicate the consensus. Lastly, we'll answer some of the objections to communicating the consensus. The consensus story has several important chapters. Seeing the full story is essential to understanding why scientific consensus is important. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00003 I Naomi Oreskes was the first to quantify the level of expert agreement on human-caused global warming in 2004 1. I Analyzing 928 scientific papers on global climate change, she couldn't find a single peer-reviewed paper rejecting humancaused global warming. This was the first research that put hard numbers on the overwhelming scientific consensus, and was featured prominently in Al Gore's award-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Since that seminal 2004 paper, a number of other studies have examined the scientific consensus in various ways. These include surveys of the scientific community 234 5 , , , , analyses of public statements about climate change6, and analyses of Among peer--reviewed studies examining expert agreement on climate change, there iis consensus on consensus. peer-reviewed research into climate change 7. A synthesis of this research -a survey of surveys- concluded that the expert consensus on climate change is between 90 to 100%, with a number of studies converging on 97% agreement 8. Among peer-reviewed studies examining expert agreement on climate change, there is consensus on consensus. Figure 1:Summary of studies measuring agreement among climate scientists or climate papers on human-caused global warming. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00004 What is a "climate expert"? Clarifying what is meant by a "climate expert" is important to understand how misinformation campaigns have exploited confusion about experts in order to cast doubt on the consensus. In the context of climate change, most studies define a climate expert as a climate scientist publishing peer-reviewed climate research. For example, the first study finding 97% consensus looked at climate scientists actively publishing climate research3. The second study finding 97% consensus looked at scientists who had published peerreviewed climate papers 6. Analyses of scientific research have looked at papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of "global climate change" or "global warming'~J_The emphasis is on scientists who have published climate-related scientific research. Why does the level of expertise matter? As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement that humans are causing global warming 8. However, this link between expertise and consensus has made it possible for misinformers to cast doubt on the scientific consensus by appealing to groups with lower expertise in climate science. This technique is known as "fake experts" - portraying non-experts as subject matter experts in order to cast doubt on scientific consensus. Scientific agreement on human-caused global warming 100 ,.,,-,, 80 ~::., (/) :::, (/) C (I) (/) 60 C 0 u Q ;;= 40 C (I) Q (/) 20 0 Expertise in climate science Figure 2: Scientific consensus vs. expertise in climate science. Each dot represents a group of scientists, from economic geologists to climate scientists publishing climate research. Groups with higher expertise in publishing climate research show higher agreement that humans are causing global warming 8, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00005 Despite many studies confirming the overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change, there is a gaping chasm between the actual 97% consensus and the public's perception of the consensus. On average, people think that around 67% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. An even more disturbing statistic is that only 13%of Americans are aware that the consensus is over 90%9. ...there is a gaping chasm between the actual 97% consensus and the public's perception of the consensus. This misconception doesn't just apply to the general public. Even many science teachers aren't aware of the consensus 1°.The unfortunate consequence of this misconception is that many teachers cover climate change by presenting contrarian viewpoints alongside mainstream climate science. As we'll see on Page 8, false-balance treatment of climate change has a misinforming effect. Figure 3: The consensus gap 8 · 9. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00006 The role of politics and information Why is there such a large consensus gap? Figure 4 reveals several contributors. First, we see that public perception of consensus varies widely across the political spectrum. The more politically conservative a person, the lower their perceived consensus. This means that political bias plays a large role in lowering perceived consensus. The more politically conservative a person, H·1elower U-leirperceived consensus. This means that political bias plays a large role in lowering perceived consensus. But even at the liberal end of the political spectrum, there's a gap between public perception and the 97% consensus. This means that information (either lack of awareness or the influence of misinformation) is arguably an even greater contributor to the consensus gap than political bias. This is not surprising given that misinformation campaigns have persistently confused the public about the consensus for nearly three decades 11,12. In fact, the first messages that the public heard about the consensus on climate change came in the form of misinformation. Public perception of scientific consensus on climate change -liberal Political Beliefs conservative ---+ Figure 4: Perceived scientific consensus vs. political ideology measured in 2013B. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002255-00007 I Over a decade before Naomi Oreskes first quantified the consensus, opponents of climate action began to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. The first public messages about the I consensus on climate change were that there was no consensus. Campaigns Manufacturing Doubt about Scientific Consensus of scientific certainty a primary issue ..." Most used myth in syndicated conservative columns from 2007 to 2010 is "There is no consensus" Heartland Institute release Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Report Figure 5: A timeline of misinformation campaigns casting doubt on the consensus on climate change. As well as government-based misinformation, the fossil fuel industry were active in generating misinformation, using techniques that the tobacco industry had honed decades earlier 14 . In 1991,the Western Fuels Association spent over half a million dollars on a public relations campaign to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)" 15 P139. One of the most prominent and potent misinformation campaigns against the consensus is the Global Warming Petition Project, launched in 1998. It is an on line petition featuring over 31,000 Americans who have signed a statement claiming that humans aren't disrupting the climate. However, this petition uses the technique of fake experts (introduced on page 3); 99.9% of the signatories are not climate scientists (and many are not scientists, while others aren't real people). Further, while 31,000 seems like a lot, even if they were real scientists, they would represent only 0.3% of the 10 million Americans with a science degree. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00008 Despite its fatal flaws, the Petition Project is both popular and effective in misinforming people. An experiment testing six common myths about climate change found that the Global Warming Petition Project was the most damaging in reducing acceptance of climate change 16. An analysis of social media posts in 2016 found that the most shared climate article featured this petition 7 1. More recent misinformation efforts by the fossil fuel industry, conservative think tanks, and other conservative writers have continued to attack the consensus. From 2007 to 2010, the most common argument in conservative op-eds about climate change was that there was no consensus 12. 120 Most common myths in conservative op-eds 2007 to 2010 80 40 0 "Ice isn't melting" "It's cooling" "There is no consensus" Figure 6: The three most common claims in conservative op-eds about climate change published from 2007 to 2010 12. Undermining the existence of the scientific consensus has been a major strategy of opponents of climate action since 1990 and continues to be a dominant theme. Consensus misinformation can take many forms, including emphasizing uncertainty 38 and signed declarations. Another form of misinformation worth further examination is false-balance media coverage. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00009 One of the most insidious, albeit often inadvertent forms of climate misinformation is falsebalance media coverage, where contrarian voices are given equal coverage with climate scientists. This stems from the journalistic norm assuming there are always two sides to an issue, thus giving mainstream and contrarian voices equal representation. As a result, a few dissenting scientists are given similar attention to the 97% of scientists who are convinced that humans are causing global warming. Analysis of media coverage from 1988 to 2002 showed that newspapers often presented false balance media coverage of climate change 18. While the situation has improved in prestige-press coverage 19, the tabloid press has shown no signs of improvement Similarly, 70% of U.S.lV coverage of climate change presents a false balancei'1. 20 . In short, much of what people learn about climate change from the media involves well-established scientific truth presented alongside groundless assertions. What impact does this have? When people see two sides arguing a complicated scientific issue, they come away with the impression of an ongoing 50:50 debate. False-balance media coverage reduces the public's understanding across a range of issuei 2 23 24 , , _ When it comes to climate change, false-balance media coverage has been shown to lower perceived consensus 25 . How should the media cover climate change? Covering climate change is a challenge for journalists. On the one hand, they should strive to maintain objectivity and balance. On the other hand, giving contrarians equal coverage with mainstream scientists when there is a scientific consensus misleads the public about the state of the science. One way to present conflicting viewpoints without misleading is by presenting weightof-evidence or weight-of-experts information. These approaches acknowledge multiple sides to a debate while also evaluating which side is supported by evidence and a scientific consensus 26 . This approach has been found to foster more accurate beliefs while also acknowledging contrarian viewpoints 27 28 , . Media organizations such as the BBC have resolved to avoid false-balance coverage by consideration of due weight.29. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00010 Visual exemplars such as a photo of scientists representing the state of scientific understanding are an effective way to communicate weight-of-evidence information3°. However, too much information can overwhelm people-one study found combining weightof-experts information with comments from scientists from each side made it hard for readers to distinguish between majority and minority views 23 . Consequently, it's more effective to provide a straightforward (ideally visual) summary of the state of expert agreement. have concluded humans are causing climate change Figure 7: Weight-of-evidence are convinced humans are causing climate change 7 or weight-of-experts 2 3 6 · · visualisations. To debate or not to debate Debate is crucially important to climate science and in the case of human-caused climate change has already occurred over decades. The process of scientific debate is open to anyone-although it does require that participants subject their ideas to the scrutiny of the peer-review process, which is fundamental for the advancement of scientific knowledge 31. However, contrarians refuse to participate in scientific debates: they do not present their views at scientific conferences, and have a negligible presence in the peer-reviewed literature. Instead, they demand special treatment by bypassing the usual scientific process and presenting unvetted ideas to the public. How should one respond if invited to publicly debate mainstream climate science? Requests to "debate" climate science or the timing of climate impacts are for propaganda purposes and should be avoided. Agreeing to participate in such debates run the risk of misinforming the public by conveying the false impression that the scientific community is undecided on basic facts like human-caused global warming. In contrast, debates over solutions to climate change are worthwhile. One response to an invitation to debate is to inform the organisers of the danger of misinforming the public by debating established science, and that a more appropriate and constructive debate topic is climate solutions. If the organisers persist in hosting a problematic debate, a further option is to issue a public statement explaining that you had advised the organisers not to go ahead due to the problematic nature of the event, but they went ahead regardless. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002255-00011 I Misinformation about the consensus has persisted for decades. What impact does this have on public perceptions of climate change? Misinformation affects people in several ways. I First, misinformation causes many people to believe false information. A study testing the effect of misleading statistics found that providing just a handful of misleading numbers was effective in lowering acceptance of climate change 32. Another study tested six different pieces of climate misinformation and found that attacks on the consensus were the most effective in lowering acceptance of climate change 16. Second, misinformation can cancel out the impact of accurate information. When people are presented with conflicting pieces of information, the two can cancel each other out 16 25 33 , , . In other words, misinformation doesn't just cause some people to believe falsehoods, it can stop them from believing the facts. Effect on perceived consensus (/) :::, (/) 20 C (I) (/) C 0 l) as 10 > (l) (.) I.., (l) 0.. C 0 (I) 0) C (0 .c l) -10 Consensus Misinformation Consensus+ Misinformation Figure 8: The effect of different types of messages about climate change. The first bar shows the positive effect of a 97% message. The second bar shows the negative effect of misinformation. The third bar shows how consensus information and misinformation cancel each other outi6. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00012 In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute along with other industry groups and conservative think-tanks teamed together to publish the "Global Climate Science Communications Plan" report. They surveyed over 1000 Americans and found that casting doubt on scientific agreement reduced concern about climate change. Their strategy was simple yet effective- recruit a handful of scientists to hit news organizations with a steady stream of misinformation. By exploiting the journalistic norm of covering both sides, the goal was to confuse the public through false-balance coverage of climate change. Around the same time, politicalstrategistFrank Luntzwas conductingmarket research into how Republicanpoliticianswho opposed policiesto stop globalwarmingshouldtalk about climate change31. He found that if people thoughtthe experts disagreedabout human-causedglobalwarming,their opinionson climate policywould changeaccordingly. Luntz recommendedcastingdoubt on the scientific consensusto win the policydebate. The (ethicallydubious)meritsof this communicationstrategy have been confirmed by subsequentresearchfindingthat when people are told that experts disagree,their support for environmentalpolicygoes down34 . WINNING THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE - AN OVERVIEW Please keep in mind the following commrmication recommendations as you address global warming in general, particularly as Democrats and opinion leaders attack President Bush over Kyoto. 1. The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need t continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field. Excerpt the Lunlz SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00013 Over a decade after fossil fuel groups and political strategists discovered the important role of perceived consensus and systematically began to undermine it, social scientists began to catch up. The first studies came in 2011and 2013, finding that perceptions about scientific agreement are linked to support for climate policy and acceptance of science more generally 35 36 , . Later research built on this line of work, advancing the "Gateway Belief Model", which confirmed that what people think about expert agreement influences a range of other key climate attitudes, including whether global warming is real, caused by humans, resulting in serious impacts and importantly, whether we should act to solve it37. Figure Perceived consensus as a gateway belief 37 The status of perceived consensus as a gateway belief to acceptance of (climate) science has since been confirmed by a number of independent studies 35 , 3s,39 , 4 o_This includes experiments finding that highlighting the 97% consensus increases acceptance of climate science 13,36,41,42,43_ Based on this research, communication experts have urged scientists to communicate the overwhelming agreement on human-caused global warming in order to address the misconception that scientists still disagree 44 . Informing people about the consensus is not a magic bullet that solves everything, but it is a powerful tool for helping people to understand climate change and reach appropriate conclusions about it. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00014 The powerful role of heuristics: wisdom of the crowd People simply don't have the time, energy (or infinite brain capacity) to become an expert on every topic they encounter. So they employ mental short-cuts or heuristics, either consciously or unconsciously, to help them make decisions. Much research has shown that heuristics do a fairly good job at helping people arrive at sound decisions 45 , particularly in situations that are complex and uncertain . ...a useful heuristic is relying on the opinion of experts to guide one's views on complicated issues. For example, a useful heuristic is relying on the opinion of experts to guide one's views on complicated issues. This approach makes a lot of sense- no one has time to research every issue they encounter and thus we have to defer to expert opinion. We are also often influenced by the opinion of other people, including peers and experts. Importantly, research has shown that group verdicts can be very accurate, and under certain conditions, more accurate than the individuals within the group. This socially-derived wisdom is known as the "wisdom of the crowd" 46 ,47 and makes good sense on an intuitive level too. For example, we often feel better about getting a second, independent opinion when faced with a serious dilemma. It is therefore for good reason that humans pay very close attention to the opinions and judgments of others, and when an entire group of specialists all agree on something, that sends an important signal. In fact, relying on a select "crowd" of experts has been found to be both popular and reliable 48 . It makes sense mathematically too: Condorcet's Jury Theorem tell us that when judgments are aggregated independently (more or less), and when the probability of each individual being "correct" is 50% or higher (e.g. in the case of experts), adding more votes to the majority consensus will increase the likelihood that the consensus is correct 49 . SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00015 I There are a variety of ways to convey the overwhelming agreement among climate scientists, and a number of studies have tested different approaches. One study that tested numeric versus I non-numeric statements about the level of scientific agreement found that numeric statements were more effective 4 2. For example, the statement "97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening" elicited estimates of the consensus that were 15 percentage points higher than the statement "An overwhelming majority of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening". Another study tested different ways off raming consensus such as using verbal and visual analogies (i.e.,"if 97% of doctors concluded that your child is sick, would you believe them?"). They found that while metaphors are useful, a pie-chart that visually communicated the 97% consensus was the most effective, particularly among conservative audiences3 7. Figure 10: Pie-chart infographic from The Consensus Project, a website launched to communicate the results of Cook et aL (2013)7. Asking people to estimate the level of agreement prior to telling them about the 97% consensus is another useful approach. This "estimation and reveal" technique has been found to be more effective than simply communicating the consensus 42 . More generally, communication experts recommend the following approach to enhance the effectiveness of science communication: simple clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted voices 44 , 50 . This approach is echoed by Frank Luntz, the political strategist who recommended that opponents of climate action attack the scientific consensus 51 : "Yousay it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you're absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time." Opponents of climate action have followed the advice of Luntz and persistently attacked the consensus for nearly three decades. From a messaging campaign point of view, it is a sound strategy if one wishes to decrease public support for climate action. Fortunately, it is possible to defang that strategy. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00016 A number of studies illustrate the importance and efficacy of communicating the 97% consensus. However, when consensus information is combined with misinformation about the consensus, the two cancel each other out 16. This helps explain why public opinion has not shifted as much as it might have over the years- persistent misinformation about the consensus has reduced the effectiveness of communicating the scientific consensus. How might we resolve this stalemate? One answer comes from inoculation theory: a branch of psychological research that takes the idea of physical vaccination and applies it to knowledge 52. By exposing people to misinformation along with a clear warning that it is misinformation can help people become more resistant to such misinformation. An inoculating text consists of two elements: a warning that people might be misled, and preemptive counter-arguments explaining the techniques used to distort the facts. Preemptively refuting misinformation has been found to be more effective than debunking the misinformation after people receive it38.When it comes to misinformation, prevention is better than cure 53 . Effect on perceived consensus ~ 20 (/) C (I) (/) C 0 0 10 -0 (l) > (l) (.) I.., (l) 0.. 0 C (I) 0) C (0 0 -10 ---------------------------Consensus Misinformation Consensus+ Misinformation Consensus+ Inoculation+ Misinformation Figure 11:The effect of different types of messages about climate change. This figure is an amendment of Figure 8, now with a fourth bar showing the effect of inoculating people before showing them misinformation. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00017 Several approaches to inoculation have been shown to be effective in supporting the scientific consensus on climate change. One study found that providing people with explicit forewarning about the type of misinformation they might encounter largely counteracted the effect of the misinformation 16 . Another study found that explaining the techniques of misinformation in general terms without specifically mentioning the misinformation is also helpful 25 . In addition, another study found that warning people that science shouldn't be politicized, along with a statement about the consensus, was successful in neutralizing misinformation about new energy technologies 38. Similarly, simply communicating the 97% consensus before false-balance media coverage was successful in neutralizing the negative influence of such misinformation 25 . Satire is a powerful form of inoculation. One example is a comedy video by John Oliver that parodies how televised debates about climate change reinforce the false balance problem. They produced a satirical weight-of-experts response, with 3 contrarian scientists debating 97 mainstream scientists as a "statistically representative climate change debate". Watching this video has been shown to increase people's acceptance of global warming and perceived consensus 39 . SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00018 Deconstructing misinformation To create an effective inoculation message, it helps to start with a strong understanding of how misleading arguments are constructed. This requires a critical thinking approach to argumentation, in order to detect the reasoning fallacies in a misleading argument54 . Arguments are made up of one or more starting assumptions, or premises, leading to a conclusion. To reliably detect where an argument goes wrong, one needs to deconstruct the argument into its constituent premises and conclusion. This then allows one to determine whether all the premises are true, and if so, whether the premises logically lead to the conclusion. This process allows one to detect the fallacies included within a false argument, which can then be used in an inoculating text. For example, the Global Warming Petition Project claims that there is no expert consensus on climate change based on two premises: a large proportion of science graduates dissent, and these dissenters are climate experts. By deconstructing the claim into its constituent parts, we are able to identify that both premises are false. The first premise uses the magnified minority fallacy: 31,000 is a tiny proportion of the total number of U.S.science graduates. The second premise relies on fake experts: almost all signatories have no expertise in climate science. Figure 12:Structure of the claim that there is no scientific consensus, based on the Global Warming Petition Project SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00019 I I Opponents of climate action have used the insights of audience research and communicated "there is no consensus" for nearly three decades. While social scientists have also realized the important psychological role of perceived consensus, some scientists and others have raised objections about efforts to communicate the scientific consensus. These objections are worthy of rebuttal, because they typically ignore relevant evidence on how people think about scientific matters 55 . The false dichotomy between consensus & policy One argument against consensus communication is that it distracts from policy discussion 56 . This "either/or" choice between consensus or policy is a false dichotomy. Consensus messaging complements rather than competes with policy discussion. Establishing that experts agree there's a problem serves as a stepping-stone to discussing how to solve it 57. In actual fact, therefore, consensus messaging permits discussion of policy rather than prevent it. In contrast, misinformation that casts doubt on the consensus is designed to delay climate policy discussions. This was identified early by opponents of climate action who directed their focus on confusing the public about the consensus in order to reduce support for climate action. Consensus misinformation is a "lever for inaction". The 97%) consensus offers a lot of bang for one's cor11rnunication buck. Consensus messaging is designed to remove a distraction designed to delay climate policy. The "consensus vs policy" false dichotomy runs the risk of causing the very outcome it seeks to avoid. The effectiveness of consensus messaging A number of studies show that consensus messaging is a powerful communication tool (see page 14).Simply communicating the current state of scientific agreement (97%) not only raises perceived consensus, it also has a positive influence on acceptance that global warming is real, human-caused, and is a serious problem. Most importantly, it increases support for climate policy. The 97% consensus offers a lot of bang for one's communication buck. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00020 However, another objection to consensus messaging is that public perception of the consensus hasn't changed over the last decade. As scientists have been communicating the consensus over this period, the argument goes that consensus messaging doesn't work 58 , 59. This argument, however, is false on several points. First, public perception of the consensus is shifting. A number of independent surveys find that perceived consensus has been steadily increasing since 2010 60 , 61, 62 _ Perception that most scientists agree global warming is happening 60 50 40 Q) 0) co c 30 Q) ~ Q) o_ 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Figure 13:Public perception of scientific consensus from U,5, national representative surveys 62 . Second, this argument ignores the role of misinformation in reducing the effectiveness of consensus messaging. Page 10 showed that misinformation can cancel out the influence of consensus information 16 . Attacking the consensus has been one of the most common arguments used by climate contrarians 12. This underscores the need to not only continue to communicate the 97% consensus but also to inoculate people against misinformation casting doubt on the consensus. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00021 Neutralizing political ideology A third objection to communicating the consensus is that it is a polarizing message 58 . While one study found a small proportion of conservatives react negatively to consensus information 3 1 , the majority of studies testing consensus messaging find that either consensus neutralizes the influence of political ideology 16, 25 , 36 , 37 ,43 orworks equally well across the political spectrum 41 42 , . People's perception of the scientific consensus is a so- called "meta-cognition", a belief about what other people believe. It is therefore relatively less threatening for people to simply change their beliefs about what other people think than it is to overhaul one's deeply held worldview. However, we know that changing one's beliefs about what the experts think ultimately leads to subsequent changes in private beliefs (page 12).In short, we can think of perceived consensus as a non-identity threatening gateway cognition. 5----------------4 - 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. -e-- Consensus group ---&- Control group • • -0.67 0.00 • 0.67 Support for Free Markets Figure 14: Effect of consensus message across political ideology, While a control group shows !he biasing influence of political ideology, this influence is neutralized after receiving a consensus message 3 6 , Political ideology is important but not the full picture. Figure 4 (page 5)shows two contributors to the consensus gap: political bias and information deficit/misinformation surplus. Consequently, science communicators should employ two channels of science communication: addressing both cultural values and information deficit6 3. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00022 There is strong support- in both theory and research findings-for the value of communicating the full extent of the scientific consensus about human-caused climate change in simple, clear numeric terms. As a result of sustained misinformation campaigns, few members of the public currently understand the extent of the consensus-a damaging misconception that reduces support for climate action. Moreover, efforts to inform people about the consensus have shown to be effective, and help people reach accurate conclusions about climate change. Lastly, efforts to inoculate members of the public against the misinformation campaign about the scientific consensus appear likely to help neutralize the harmful effects of that campaign. Because successful science communication campaigns typically feature "simple clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted voices," the community of individuals and organizations seeking to help the public and policymakers better understand-and make better decisions about-climate change should demonstrate the patience, perseverance, and communication discipline necessary to set the record straight about the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00023 Oreskes, N. (2004 ).The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686-1686. 2 Carlton, J. S.,Perry-Hill, R, Huber, M., & Prokopy, L. S. (2015).The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. Environmental Research Letters, 10(9), 094025. 3 Doran, P. T.,& Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23. 4 Stenhouse, N.,Maibach, E.,Cobb, S.,Ban, R, Bleistein, A, Croft, P.,Bierly, E.,Seitter, K.,Rasmussen, G.,& Leiserowitz, A (2014). Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(7), 1029-1040. 5 Verheggen, B.,Strenge rs, B.,Cook, J., van Dorland, R, Vringer, K.,Peters, J.,Visser, H. & Meyer, L. (2014). Scientists' views about attribution of global warming. Environmental science & technology, 48(16), 89638971. 6 Anderegg, W. R L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 12107-12109. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D.,Green, SA, Richardson, M.,Winkler, B., Painting, R, Way, R, Jacobs, P.,& Skuce, A (2013).Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024+. Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T.,Anderegg, W. R, Verheggen, B.,Maibach, E.W., Carlton, J. S.,Lewandowsky, S.,Skuce, AG., Green, S. A, & Nuccitelli, D. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. Leiserowitz, A, Maibach, E.,Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S.,& Cutler, M. (2017). Climate change in the American mind: May 2017. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from http:/ /climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2017 / 0 7/ Climate-Chang e-American-Mind-May-2017.pd f Plutzer, E.,McCaffrey, M., Hannah, AL., Rosenau, J., Berbeco, M.,& Reid, AH. (2016). Climate confusion among U.S.teachers. Science, 351(6274 ), 664-665. Boussalis, C., & Coan, T.G. (2016).Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt. Global Environmental Change, 36, 89- 100. Elsasser, S.W.,& Dunlap, RE. (2013). Leading voices in the denier choir: Conservative columnists' dismissal of global warming and denigration of climate science. American Behavioral Scientist, 57: 754-776 doi:10.1177/0002764212469800. Cook, J. & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). Rational Irrationality: Modeling Climate Change Belief Polarization Using Bayesian Networks. Topics in Cognitive Science. 8(1),160-179. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing, USA Oreskes, N. (2010) My facts are better than your facts,: spreading good news about global warming, in: M. S. Morgan and P. Howlett (eds.) How do facts travel? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp.135-166. van der Linden, S.,Leiserowitz, A, Rosenthal, S.,& Maibach, E.(2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2). Readfearn, G. (2016). Revealed: Most Popular Climate Story on Social Media Told Half a Million People the Science Was a Hoax. Desmogblog. Retrieved from https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/11/29/revealedmost-popular-climate-story-social-media-told-half-million-people-science-was-hoax Boyko ff, M. T.,& Boyko ff, J.M. (2004 ). Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global environmental change, 14(2),125-136. Boyko ff, M. T. (2007). Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00024 20 Boyko ff, M. T. & Mansfield, M.(2008). 'Ye Olde Hot Aire': reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press, Environmental Research Letters, 3, pp. 1-8. 21 Boykoff, M.T.,(2008), Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic change, 1995-2004. Climatic Change, 86 (1),1-11. 22 Dixon, G. N.,& Clarke, C. E. (2013). Heightening Uncertainty Around Certain Science Media Coverage, False Balance, and the Autism-Vaccine Controversy. Science Communication, 35(3), 358-382. 23 Koehler, D. J. (2016). Can journalistic "false balance" distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(1),24. 24 Kortenkamp, K. V.,& Basten, B. (2015). Environmental Science in the Media Effects of Opposing Viewpoints on Risk and Uncertainty Perceptions. Science Communication, 107554 701557 4016. 25 Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S.,& Ecker, U. K.(2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS One, 12(5),e0175799. 26 Dunwoody, S. (2005). Weight-of-evidence 27 Clarke, C. E., Dixon, G. N., Holton, A., & McKeever, B. W. (2015). Including "Evidentiary Balance" in news media coverage of vaccine risk. Health communication, 30(5),461-472. 28 Dunwoody, S.,& Kohl, P.A. (2017). Using Weig ht-of-Experts Messaging to Communicate Accurately About Contested Science. Science Communication, 39(3), 338-357. 29 Jones, S. (2011).BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science. BBC Trust. Available athttp://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf /our_ work/science _impartiality /science_ impartiality.pdf 30 Dixon, G. N., McKeever, B. W., Holton, A. E.,Clarke, C., & Eosco, G. (2015). The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication, 65(4 ), 639-659. 31 Ceccarelli, L. (2011).Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2),195-228. 32 Ranney, MA & Clark, D. (2016). Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1),49- 75. 33 McCrig ht, A. M., Charters, M.,Dentzman, K.,& Dietz, T.(2016). Examining the Effectiveness of Climate Change Frames in the Face of a Climate Change Denial Counter-Frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 76-97. 34 Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 173-177. 35 Ding, D.,Maibach, E.W., Zhao,X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011).Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9),462-466. 36 Lewandowsky, S.,Gignac, G. E.,& Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4 ), 399-404. 37 van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G.D., & Maibach, E.W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PloS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. 38 Boisen, T.,& Druckman, J. N. (2015). Counteracting 65(5), 745- 769. 39 Brewer, P. R, & McKnight, J. (2017). "A Statistically Representative Climate Change Debate": Satirical Television News, Scientific Consensus, and Public Perceptions of Global Warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25(3), 166-180. 40 McCright, A. M., Dunlap, RE., & Xiao, C. (2013). Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Climatic Change, 119(2),511-518. climate reporting: What is it? Why use it. Nieman Reports, 59(4 ), 89-91. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00025 41 Deryugina, T.,& Shurchkov, 0. (2016). The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0151469. 42 Myers, T.A, Maibach, E.,Peters, E.,& Leiserowitz, A (2015). Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results ofTwo Experiments. PLOS One, 10(3), e0120985-e0120985. 43 van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A, & Maibach, E. (2018). Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1),2-3. 44 Maibach, E.,Myers, T.,& Leiserowitz, A (2014). Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening. Earth's Future, 2(5), 295-298. 45 Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W (2011).Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology, 62, 451-482. 46 Budescu, D. V.,& Chen, E. (2014). Identifying expertise to extract the wisdom of crowds. Management Science, 61(2),267-280. 47 Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Random House. 48 Mannes, A E.,Soll, J.B., & Larrick, RP. (2014 ). The wisdom of select crowds. Journal of personality and social psychology, 107(2), 276. 49 Hahn, U., Harris, A J., & Corner, A (2016). Public reception of climate science: Coherence, reliability, and independence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1),180-195. 50 Maibach, E. (in press). Increasing public awareness and facilitating behavior change: Two guiding heuristics. In L. Hannah and T. Lovejoy (eds.) Climate Change and Biodiversity, 2nd edition. Yale University Press. 51 Frontline (2003). Interview Frank Luntz. Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/ frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html 52 McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961).The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense producing immunity against persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24-34. 53 van der Linden, S.,Maibach, E.,Cook, J., Leiserowitz, A, & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Inoculating against misinformation. Science, 358(6367), 1141-1142. 54 Cook, J., Ellert on, P.,and Kinkead, D. (2018). Deconstructing errors. Environmental Research Letters, 11(2). 55 Cook, J. (2016). Countering Climate Science Denial and Communicating Scientific Consensus. Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. London: Oxford University Press. 56 Pearce, W., Grundmann, R, Hulme, M., Raman, S., Hadley Kershaw, E.,& Tsouvalis, J. (2017). Beyond Counting Climate Consensus. Environmental Communication, 1-8. 57 Cook, J. (2017). Communicating consensus removes a roadblock delaying climate action -- Reply to Pearce et al.: Beyond Counting Climate Consensus. Environmental Communication. 58 Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-Science 36(S1),1-43. 59 Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2015). Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 613-626. 60 Hamilton, L. C. (2018). Public Awareness of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Rising. The Carsey School of Public Policy at the Scholars' Repository. 336. https:/ /scholars.unh.edu/carsey/336 61 Saad, L. (2017). Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US.Gallup. Available at http://www.gallup. com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx 62 Yale & George Mason (2017). Climate change in the American mind: Americans' global warming beliefs and attitudes. Yale University and George Mason University. 63 Kahan, D.,Jenkins-Smith, H.,Taranto la, T.,Silva, C. L.,& Braman, D. (2012). Geoengineering and the science communication environment: a cross-cultural experiment. The Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper, 92,41. in climate misinformation to identify reasoning Communication and the Measurement Problem. Political Psychology, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002255-00026 8 5 0 4. From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 12/18/2017 7:24:32 PM National Security Strategy Report This is the only reference to climate change in the entire 56-page document: Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system. U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty. The United States will continue to advance an approach that balances energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while expanding our economy. This achievement, which can serve as a model to other countries, flows from innovation, technology breakthroughs, and energy efficiency gains, not from onerous regulation. As a growing supplier of energy resources, technologies, and services around the world, the United States will help our allies and partners become more resilient against those that use energy to coerce. America's role as an energy exporter will also require an assessment of our vulnerabilities and a resilient American infrastructure. Finally, the Nation's long-term energy security future rests with our people. We must invest in our future by supporting innovation and R&D, including through the National Laboratories. Tone perfect. Thank you, Mr. President. Merry Christmas and happy new year! Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002256-00001 Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002256-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 12/18/2017 6:28:09 PM National Security Strategy Fact Sheet -- not one reference to climate change This is what winning looks like, folks. That whole "global warming is a threat multiplier'' thing is so over. Joe From: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHO Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 12:09 PM To: Sadler, Kelly J. EOP/WHO Subject: National Security Strategy Fact Sheet PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP ANNOUNCES A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY TO ADVANCE AMERICA'S INTERESTS "Our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens -- to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values." - President Donald J. Trump A NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR A NEW ERA: Less than a year after taking office, President Donald J. Trump is unveiling a new National Security Strategy that sets a positive strategic direction for the United States that will restore America's advantages in the world and build upon our country's great strengths. •======== The 2017 National Security Strategy (Strategy) builds on the 11 months of Presidential action to restore respect for the United States abroad and renew American confidence at home. •======== Strategic confidence enables the United States to protect its vital national interests. The Strategy identifies four vital national interests, or "four pillars" as: I. Protect the homeland, the American people, and American way of life; II. Promote American prosperity; Ill. Preserve peace through strength; IV. Advance American influence. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002257-00001 •======== The Strategy addresses key challenges and trends that affect our standing in the world, including: •======== Revisionist powers, such as China and Russia, that use technology, propaganda, and coercion to shape a world antithetical to our interests and values; •======== Regional dictators that spread terror, threaten their neighbors, and pursue weapons of mass destruction; •======== Jihadist terrorists that foment hatred to incite violence against innocents in the name of a wicked ideology, and transnational criminal organizations that spill drugs and violence into our communities. •======== The Strategy articulates and advances the President's concept of principled realism. •======== It is a realist strategy because it acknowledges the central role of power in international politics, affirms that strong and sovereign states are the best hope for a peaceful world, and clearly defines our national interests. •======== It is principled because it is grounded in advancing American principles spreads peace and prosperity around the globe. I. PROTECT THE HOMELAND: President Trump's fundamental responsibility is to protect the American people, the homeland, and the American way of life. •======== We will strengthen control of our borders and reform our immigration system to protect the homeland and restore our sovereignty. •======== The greatest transnational threats to the homeland are: •======== Jihadist terrorists, using barbaric cruelty to commit murder, repression, and slavery, and virtual networks to exploit vulnerable populations and inspire and direct plots. •======== Transnational criminal organizations, tearing apart our communities with drugs and violence and weakening our allies and partners by corrupting democratic institutions. •======== America will target threats at their source: we will confront threats before they ever reach our borders or cause harm to our people. •======== We will redouble our efforts to protect our critical infrastructure and digital networks, because new technology and new adversaries create new vulnerabilities. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002257-00002 •========Weare deploying a layered missile defense system to defend America against missile attacks. II. PROMOTE AMERICAN PROSPERITY: A strong economy protects the American people, supports our way of life, and sustains American power. •========We will rejuvenate the American economy for the benefit of American workers and companies, which is necessary to restore our national power. •========America will no longer tolerate chronic trade abuses and will pursue free, fair, and reciprocal economic relationships. •========To succeed in this 21st century geopolitical competition, America must lead in research, technology, and innovation. We will protect our national security innovation base from those who steal our intellectual property and unfairly exploit the innovation of free societies. •========America will use its energy dominance to ensure international markets remain open, and that the benefits of diversification and energy access promote economic and national security. Ill. PRESERVE PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH: An America strengthened, renewed, and rejuvenated will ensure peace and deter hostility. •========We will rebuild America's military strength to ensure it remains second to none. •========America will use all of the tools of statecraft in a new era of strategic competition-diplomatic, information, military, and economic-to protect our interests. •========America will strengthen its capabilities across numerous domains - including space and cyber - and revitalize capabilities that have been neglected. •========America's allies and partners magnify our power and protect our shared interests. We expect them to take greater responsibility for addressing common threats. •========We will ensure the balance of power remains in America's favor in key regions of the world: the Inda-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. IV. ADVANCE AMERICAN INFLUENCE: As a force for good throughout its history, America will use its influence to advance our interests and benefit humanity. •========We must continue to enhance our influence overseas to protect the American people and promote our prosperity . • SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002257-00003 •======== America's diplomatic and development efforts will compete to achieve better outcomes in all arenas-bilateral, multilateral, and in the information realm-to protect our interests, find new economic opportunities for Americans, and challenge our competitors . • •======== America will seek partnerships with like-minded states to promote free market economies, private sector growth, political stability, and peace. •======== We champion our values - including the rule of law and individual rights - that promote strong, stable, prosperous, and sovereign states. Our America First foreign policy celebrates America's influence in the world as a positive force that can help set the conditions for peace, prosperity, and the development of successful societies. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002257-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 12/18/2017 4:44:17 PM Some Recent Energy & Environmental News - 12/18/17 John Droz's latest newsletter, below, has links to some very interestingarticles. This one, on wind power, reportsthese findings: • Despite a growing chorus of complaints, the wind industry has expanded largely unopposed. Ten years ago, less than 300 industrial wind farms dotted the U.S. landscape. Today, more than 1,000 exist. Much of the growth has been funded by American taxpayers. Billionsof dollars in state and federal incentives have made wind farms so profitable that companies are racing to develop them before the handouts disappear. • Industrial wind turbines generate countless complaints nationwide about sleep disturbances, migraines, nausea, ear pressure, blurred vision, tinnitus and heart palpitations. Rampant reports about such effects from the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin, prompted the local Board of Health to declare the turbines a human health hazard. • Wind industry officials have denounced people who complain about these symptoms, calling them misinformed or "anti-wind." Some wind companies offer money or other concessions to frequent complainers, often in exchange for silence and a waiver for turbine-related claims. "I call it a shut-up clause," said Jim Miller of South Dakota, who refused to sign such an agreement with Florida-based NextEra. • Wind developers have used what some landowners describe as misleading tactics to get their contracts signed. Attorneys asked to review several such contracts called them one-sided, giving wind companies sweeping control over people's property with few rights for the landowner. • Wind farms have divided communities across America. Contracted landowners eyeing profits spar with neighbors opposing turbines near their backyards. Lifelong friendships can end. Families sometimes fray. Hopkinton, New York, resident Janice Pease said she stopped talking to relatives who support a proposed wind farm in their town. Pease adamantly opposes it. Pity Republicansdidn't stick to their guns and end the subsidiesto wind producers. Joe From: John Droz, jr. [mailto:aaprjohn@northnet.org] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 6:10 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Some Recent Energy & Environmental News - 12/18/17 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002258-00001 ner nvironmental ewsletter - 12/18/17 AWED Friends: Welcome to the last Energv and Environmental Newsletter of 2017! Note that this issue has a special section on Offshore Wind Energy. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002258-00002 Superior news: a major US media organization just finished a six month investi~ation into some effects of wind energy on local communities. Unlike many journalists, these people wrote an objective report that was quite critical of the wind industry. Due to space constraints, they purposefully omitted some pertinent issues (like military impacts). We hope that a Part 2 will be orthcoming. Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are: Peer-reviewed study: Why Wind Turbine Sounds are Annoying, and Why it Matters Court Finds Wind Turbine Noise Ex osure a 'Pathwa to Disease' What a local le. islator learned frorn dealing wiU1wind turbines Excellent Wind Energy related study: Roadmap to Nowhere Wind+Gas ::: tt1e Death of VVind Ener y_ Final US Tax Bill is Favorable to \/\/ind Energy Who Saved US Solar Energy & Wind Energy Tax Credits? France: 1.2 to 3.3 million bats destroyed b { wind turbines Major Massachusetts Offshore Wind Proiect Is Terminated New US wind enerqy rules rec ar·din the milita : minor im rovements For a ~,uce '· eace dividend ' encl the war on ·fossil fuels End the "VVar on Coal" Advanced Nuclear Finds a More \Nelcorne Home in Canada SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002258-00003 Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are: Revisitin: The Endanqerment Finding Pruitt Guaranteeing Debate on Climate Soon Global Warming Study Casts Doubt On Media's Climate Change Fai y Tale A Veneer of Certain Climate Alarm The relationst1io between Ph sics and Philoso h DeaU1of Science Journalism want to thank the loyal readers of our Newsletter for their efforts and in 2017. My very best wishes for an enjoyable holiday season a successful New Year! John Droz, jr. physicist & citizen advocate PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues ... As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you'd like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that. PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002258-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Copyright© 2017; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.orq) Update Email Address ... Share on Facebook ... Share on Twitter ... Unsubscribe ... SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002258-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 12/18/2017 3:26:19 PM Blame Government, not the Market, for Dwindling Coal Market This is where the debate is now, my friends. Joe The Hill h ://thchill.com/o inion/encr dwindling-coal-industry -environment/365137-blame- ovemment-not-markcts-for- Blame government, not the market, for dwindling coal industry BY ISAAC ORR, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 12/15/17 03:00 PM EST_173 Renewable energy advocates [claim] free and competitive markets are to blame for coal-fired power plants being replaced by natural gas and wind generation. The problem is, there is no such thing as "free-market electricity generation," because electricity markets are warped by a series of state and federal government policies. These market-distorting policies include a host of regulations that require states to purchase a portion of their electricity from renewable sources (state renewable energy mandates) and federal policies that subsidize renewable energy sources and impose onerous regulations on coal-fired power plants, such as the Clean Power Plan. The confluence of these policies has created carrots and sticks that have been used to manipulate wholesale electricity prices, to the detriment of coal and nuclear electricity generators. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002259-00001 Renewable energy mandates have decreed that more electricity generation capacity must be built, even though demand for electricity has been stagnant. Federal subsidies bankrolled much of the cost. As a result, the supply of electricity has outpaced demand for that electricity, causing wholesale prices to fall. This is similar to the tactic called "product dumping," which occurs when foreign companies sell their products in other countries for less than the cost of producing them to gain an unfair market share. In the United States, product dumping in the electricity sector is enabled by a federal tax subsidy called the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit, which grants $23 per megawatt hour of energy produced to wind electricity generators. The payment is issued regardless of whether there is consumer demand for the electricity created. This government policy is important, because it enables wind producers to sell their power for a profit no matter what the market demand is, a phenomenon that occurs most frequently in areas where renewables have been aggressively pursued and are dictated by state mandates. It is this government-induced oversupply of electricity, coupled with low natural gas prices, that provides the real explanation for why wholesale electricity prices are currently suppressed. However, it is important not to be fooled into believing artificially low wholesale electricity prices are a windfall for consumers. As additional coal and nuclear plants retire, the oversupply of electricity will decline and push prices upward. This has already started to happen in California, which has experienced higher retail electricity prices, despite higher incidences of negative wholesale prices, thanks to state policies that mandate renewables and the shuttering of coal-fired facilities. Residential customers in California now pay 39 percent more for their electricity than the national average. Coal and nuclear plants are not retiring because they are inefficient and need subsidies to remain competitive; they are retiring because state and federal policies have placed a thumb on the scale, unfairly favoring renewables over traditional forms of energy. Isaac Orr is a research fellow for energy and environmental policy at The Heartland Institute. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002259-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 12/17/2017 8:13:32 PM "Global Warming: Fake News from the Start" Strong language from Tim Ball and Tom Harris, but this is justified and appropriate with Trump in the White House and Pruitt at EPA. The legacy media will never report it or admit it. No reason for us to keep silent about the disgraceful history of the global warming movement. Joe Hi Friends, Here is our piece, just published on Townhall.com, the leading conservative Web site note that there have already been 500 FaceBook shares! https://townhall.com/colum nists/tom harris/2017 /12/17 /global-warming-fake-news-fromthe-start-n2423586 Here is the text: Global Warming: Fake News from the Start By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change because it is a bad deal for America. He could have made the decision simply because the science is false, but most of the public have been brainwashed into believing it is correct and wouldn't understand the reason. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002260-00001 Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and indeed the leaders of many western democracies, though thankfully not the U.S., support the Agreement and are completely unaware of the gross deficiencies in the science. If they did, they wouldn't be --~ =-=--=-:..;:,...=== (CO2) tax, on their citizens. Trudeau and other leaders show how little they know, or how little they assume the public know, by calling it a 'carbon tax.' But CO2 is a gas, while carbon is a solid. By calling the gas carbon, Trudeau and others encourage people to think of it as something 'dirty', like graphite or soot, which really are carbon. Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is actually an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis. Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is arguably the most misinformed of the lot, saying in a recent interview, for example, that "Polluters should pay." She apparently does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant. And, like many of her political peers, McKenna dismisses credentialed PhD scientists who disagree with her government's approach, labelling them "deniers." She does not seem to understand that questioning scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, is what all scientists should do. That is why the official motto of the Royal Society is ~===--.:.;;..;;.....:._;==,"Latin for "Take nobody's word for it." Ironically, the Society rarely practices this approach when it comes to climate change. Mistakes such as those made by McKenna are not surprising considering that the entire claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was built on falsehoods and spread with fake news. The plot to deceive the world about human-caused global warming gathered momentum following creation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). After spending five days at the U.N. with Maurice Strong, the first executive director of UNEP, Hamilton Spectator investigative reporter Elaine Dewar concluded the overarching objective of the IPCC was political. "Strong SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002260-00002 was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the global governance agenda," wrote Dewar. The political agenda required 'credibility' to achieve the deception. It also required some fake news for momentum. Ideally, this would involve testimony from a scientist before a legislative committee. U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception as he explained in a 1993 comment, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing ... " In 1988 Wirth was in a position to jump start the climate alarm. He worked with colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to organize a June 23, 1988 hearing where Dr. James Hansen, then the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), was to testify. Wirth explained in a=-'--'------------'-'------'-"-----------'-----'-"'-=- "We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So, we called him up and asked him if he would testify." "Today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere." Specifically, Hansen told the committee, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002260-00003 "Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming ...lt is already happening now" Hansen also testified: "The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now ...We already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important." Dr. John S. Theon, Hansen's former supervisor at NASA, wrote to the Senate Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. "Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress." Hansen never abandoned his single-minded, unsubstantiated claim that CO2 from human activities caused dangerous global warming. He defied the Hatch Act that limits bureaucratic political actions, and, in 2011, was even arrested in a protest at the White House against the Keystone XL pipeline, at least his third such arrest to that point. Wirth, who presided at the hearing, was pre-disposed to believe Hansen and told the committee: "As I read it, the scientific evidence is compelling: the global climate is changing as the earth's atmosphere gets warmer. Now, the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable." So, like Trudeau and other leaders duped by the climate scare, Wirth has either not read or not understood the science. In fact, an increasing number of climate scientists (including Dr. Ball) now conclude that there is no empirical evidence of human-caused SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002260-00004 global warming; there are only computer model speculations that humans are causing it and every forecast made using these models since 1990 has been wrong. More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, that was bolstered by the U.N. and the popular press leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches across the world. Trump must now end America's participation in the fake science and the fake news of man-made global warming. To do this, he must withdraw the U.S. from further involvement with all U.N. global warming programs, especially the IPCC as well as the agency that now directs it-the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Only then will the U.S. have a chance to fully develop its hydrocarbon resources to achieve the president's goal of global energy dominance. Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) 28 Tiverton Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6L5 Canada www.climatescienceintemational.org 613-728-9200 Note: To help ICSC cover its operating expenses, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/3ttkw82. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002260-00005 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 12/16/2017 6:01 :02 PM This is winning: Climate change is to be removed as a national security threat on Monday. See the article at the end of this email. If this comes true ... if the bureaucracy follows through with it... it is yet another big victory for us. It comes on top of a similar action by the Department of Interior: h ://www.n dail ncws.com/news/national/ncw-intcrior-stratc change-report-article-1.3587435 -doesn-mention-climatc- In July, some of us signed an open letter to the Trump administration asking it to remove AGW junk from Pentagon planning and operations: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/groups-push-to in-spending-bill/article/2628566 gut-pentagons-climate-directives- Some of us met with a senior DOD official a couple years ago and laid out our case against making climate change part of national security policy. We were assured that while DOD might go through the motions of implementing Obama's directives, it would subject every real investment to rigorous cost-benefit analysis that didn't include alarmist AGW assumptions. A recent GAO report suggests this might in fact be what happened, which would be more good news: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364760-watchdog-pentagon-taken-few-steps-to-prepareoverseas-bases-for-climate-change Sometimes, too, bureaucratic inertia and "deep state" opposition to a President works to our advantage. Heartland produced two papers and circulated a third on this subject: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002261-00001 https:llwww.heartland.orglpublications-resourceslpublicationslclimate-changeenergy-policy-and-national-power https:llwww.heartland.orglpublications-resourceslpublicationslcritigue-of-climatecha nge-ada ptation-dod-can-im prove-infrastructure-planning-and-processes-tobetter-accou nt-for-potential-im pacts https://www.heartland.org/ templateassets/documents/publications/Tom Hay ard Global Warming .pdf We also have a 67-page draft chapter on this subject prepared for Climate Change Reconsidered II: Benefits and Costs of Fossil Fuels. If you want to be a peer reviewer for this chapter, let me know and I'll send you the latest draft. HIT Nancy Thomer. Joe https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017 /12/15/breaking-trump-to-remove-climate-change-as-anational-security-threat/ BREAKING: Trump to remove 'clliimatechange' as a national security threat Anthony Watts • 22 hours ago December 15, 2017 This is encouraging news: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002261-00002 The Trump administration will reverse course from previous Obama administration policy, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats. The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft. "Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system," a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said. "U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty." President Obama made climate change, and the burdensome regulations that accompany its focus, a primary focus of his administration, including in his National Security Strategy released in 2015. "[W]e are working toward an ambitious new global climate change agreement to shape standards for prevention, preparedness, and response over the next decade," that report said. "In some ways, [climate change] is akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL," Obama said at climate talks in Paris in 2015. During a weekly address, Obama said "Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change." In September 2016, President Obama released a memorandum requiring federal agencies to consider the effects of climate change in the development of national security-related doctrine, policies, and plans. All of this alarmed critics concerned with more pressing security risks. Buh-bye! Read more at The Federalist SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002261-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 12/15/2017 10:42:12 PM Jeff Jacoby: Could global warming be a good thing? HIT Larry Greenberg. Joe hnps: townhall.comcolumnists jet1jacohy2017/12.07/the-hlessings-ot:cJimatc-chaimc-112419314 The Blessings of Climate Change Jeff Jacoby I Dec 07, 2017 POINT HOPE, ALASKA, is tiny and ill-provisioned, an Arctic backwater so inaccessible that basic groceries have to be flown in and gasoline can only be brought in by barge during the smruner. The town is remote not only geographically, but also digitally: Its internet connection is so slow that teachers must spend hours downloading course material that most of us could pull off the internet in minutes. But Point Hope's luck is changing. High-speed internet is coming, and with it the benefits of ties to the world: Improved education and health care, more options for consumers, new customers for local artists, and a chance to attract tourists. All thanks to global warming. The New York Times rcportccl Sunclav that Quintillion, a global communications company, is taking advantage of melting sea ice to build a faster digital link between Europe and Asia by positioning high-speed internet cables beneath the Arctic Ocean. Until recently, cable-laying ships couldn't get too far north, but climate change has meant less ice north of the Bering Strait. Consequently, Point Hope is now a stop on Quintillion's shipping route, and the company is supplying the town with broadband service. That means a better life for residents of one of the nation's most isolated communities. In the church of climate alarmism, there may be no heresy more dangerous than the idea that the world will benefit from wanning. Zealous preachers seek to scare their flock with forecasts of cata~trophc, and threats to civili/ation. Anyone who demurs is denounced as an apostate: an anti-science "denier." But the truth - the inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase - is that while climate change brings negatives, it brings positives too. Polar melting may cause dislocation for those who live in low-lying coastal areas, but it will also lead to safe commercial shipping in fonnerly inhospitable northern seas, and to economic opportunity for high-latitude residents in places like Point Hope. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002262-00001 Shifts in climate are like shifts in the economy: They invariably spell good news for some and bad news for others. Falling interest rates are a blessing to homebuyers but a curse to savers; a strong dollar helps consumers buying imports but hinders exporters selling abroad. In the same way, changes in climate generate winners and losers. Some of global warming's effects will be disagreeable; others will be very welcome. Worldwide, colrl kills 20 times as manv o le as heat, so a wanning planet will save lives. A plethora of data confirms the greater deadliness of cold weather, even in countries with very different climate patterns. Oue studv of' morta!itv rates, for example, found that deaths from cold outnumbered those from heat by a ratio of 33-to-2 in Australia, and 61-to-3 in Britain. Of 2,000 weather-related deaths in America tallied by the Centers for Disease Control, _(!}_percentwere caused hy exce:,:,ive cold vs. 31 percent caused by excessive heat. A warming planet will also be a greener planet. Is a greener planet. Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have already led to "persistent and widespread increase" in leaf cover - i.e., greening - across as much as half of the world's vegetated regions, according to a studv published in Nature last year. Alarmists mindlessly condemn atmospheric CO2 as "carbon pollution," but carbon dioxide is essential to the health and grown of plant life. NASA satellites show that over the past 35 years, there has been an i11crcaseill world 0 recnen equal in area to twice the continental United States. Climate change has been a particular blessing in Africa, where the "Sahel greening" has significantly reduced famine. The effects of climate change range from the obvious (lower heating bills) to the subtle (more habitat for moose and enrlan 1 ered sharks). Territory formerly deemed too forbiddingly cold will grow more temperate - a11dvaluable. Delicacies from to hluebe1Tie,,may become more plentiful. Bottom line? Global wanning will bring gains as well as losses, upsides no less than downsides. Climate science isn't a black-and-white morality tale. Our climate discourse shouldn't be either. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002262-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 12/15/2017 9:22:33 PM Summary of 2012 District Court ruling upholding the Endangerment Finding In the course of editing a policy study, I came across this summary of Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 09-1322 (D.C. Cir. June 26, 2012), in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Endangerment Finding. It reminded me of several arguments made and still being made in the debate today. It helps explain why left environmentalists remain confident that the Endangerment Finding can withstand challenges, and should remind climate scientists why courtrooms are not necessarily a good place to debate the science. Joe h s://www.nnmenvirolaw.com/2012/06/d-c-circuit-court-of-a gas-regulations/ D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds EP A's Greenhouse Gas Regulations June 29, 2012 On June 26, 2012, in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 09-1322 (D.C. Cir. June 26, 2012), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule regarding greenhouse gases. The court also upheld the agency's interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requiring major stationary sources of greenhouses gases to obtain construction and operating permits. Opponents of these rules disputed the Endangerment Findings and EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA based upon the finding. Background and Procedure The EPA promulgated the disputed rules following the Supreme Court's holding in Massachusetts v. EPA that GHGs may be regulated as an air pollutant under the CAA. In response to this holding, the EPA first issued its Endangerment Finding for GHGs. The Finding SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002263-00001 was based "on a considerable body of scientific evidence," and EPA concluded that emissions of specified GHGs "contribute to the total greenhouse gas air pollution, and thus to the climate change problem, which is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare." Based on this finding, the EPA was required under the CAA to establish motor-vehicle emission standards for GHGs. The ensuing Tailpipe Rule set GHG emission standards for cars and light trncks as part of a joint rnle-making with fuel economy standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Due to EPA' s standing interpretation of the CAA, the Tailpipe Rule automatically triggered regulation of stationary GHG emitters under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) program and Title V. The PSD program requires state-issued constrnction permits for stationary sources producing either I 00 tons per year (tpy) or 250 tpy of any air pollutant. Title V requires state-issued operating permits for stationary sources that have the potential to emit at least I 00 tpy of any air pollutant. EPA then issued two rnles phasing in stationary source GHG regulation. First, in the Timing Rule, EPA concluded that an air pollutant becomes subject to regulation under the CAA (and therefore to PSD and Title V) only once a regulation requiring control of that pollutant takes effect. Therefore, EPA determined major stationary emitters of GHGs would be subject to PSD and Title V permitting requirements on the date the Tailpipe Rule became effective-or the date when GHGs first became regulated under the CAA. Fallowing the Timing Rule, EPA promulgated the Tailoring Rule, providing that only the largest sources of GHG emissions, those exceeding 75,000 or 100,000 tpy CO2e, would initially be subject to the GHG permitting. This rnle was adopted after the EPA determined requiring permitting for all sources would be overwhelmingly burdensome for both permitting authorities and stationary sources. A number of states and regulated industries filed petitions for review of these new GHG regulations, arguing the EPA misinterpreted the CAA or otherwise acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Challenges to the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners challenged EPA's Endangerment Finding on numerous substantive and procedural grounds. All challenges were rejected by the court. EPA's interpretation of CAA section 202(a)(l). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002263-00002 Petitioners argued that the EPA improperly interpreted CAA§ 202(a)(l) as restricting the finding to a science-based judgment without considerations of policy concerns and regulatory consequences. Petitioners believed the EPA was required to consider the benefits of activities emitting GHGs, the effectiveness of emissions regulation, and the potential for societal adaptation to or mitigation of climate change. Petitioners argued that, by not considering these factors, EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Court determined the plain language of CAA§ 202(a)(l) was contrary to these arguments. The language of the section requires only that the endangerment evaluation relate to whether an air pollutant causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare. The court held that the evaluation process required "scientific judgment"-not policy discussions-about the potential risks of GHGs. The court also held that CAA§ 202(a)(l) does not allow the EPA to consider, as part of the endangerment inquiry, the implications or impacts of regulations that might result from a positive endangerment finding. The Scientific Record Petitioners also challenged the adequacy of the scientific record underlying the endangerment findings. Petitioners initially challenged the EPA' s reliance on publications issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and the National Research Council. The court summarily rejected this argument, noting the scientific literature was peer-reviewed and consisted of thousands of individual studies on GHGs and climate change. The court also rejected, as "little more than a semantic trick," that EPA delegated its authority by relying on these studies. The EPA relied on the reports not as substitutes for its own judgment but as evidence upon which it relied to make its ultimate judgment. The court noted that EPA is not required to re-prove "the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question." Finally, in their challenge to the adequacy of the scientific record, Petitioners argued EPA erred in reaching the Endangerment Finding due to scientific uncertainty surrounding climate change. The court responded by noting the "substantial" body of scientific evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding. The court held the existence of some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation of an endangerment finding. The statute itself is designed to be precautionary in nature and to protect the public health. Further, the Supreme Court itself ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency may make an endangerment finding despite lingering SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002263-00003 uncertainty. The court held that the EPA' s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had relied on the scientific record "in a rational manner." The court noted that it was not its role to reweigh the evidence before it and reach its own conclusion. Lack of a quantitative threshold Petitioners contended that the Endangerment Finding was arbitrary and capricious because the EPA did not define, measure or quantify either the atmospheric concentration at which GHGs endanger the public health or welfare, the rate or type of climate change anticipated to endanger the public welfare, or the risk or impacts of climate change. The court, again relying on the plain language of CAA § 202(a)(l ), held that EPA is not required to establish a precise numerical value as part of its endangerment findings. Instead, section 202(a)(l) allows for a qualitative approach that allows the EPA to make case-by-case determinations based on the potential severity of harm in relation to the probability that the harm will occur. EP A's definition of "air pollutant" EPA defined the GHG "air pollution" and "air pollutant" subject to the Endangerment Finding as an aggregate of six GHGs, which the EPA called "well mixed greenhouse gases": carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons (PF Cs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Industry Petitioners argued EPA's decision to include PFCs and SF6 was arbitrary and capricious because motor vehicles do not emit these pollutants. The court responded that no petitioner established standing to make this argument, as no petitioner could demonstrate an injury-in-fact resulting from EPA's decision to include PFCs and SF6 in the Endangerment Finding. Failure to submit Endangerment Finding for review by Science Advisory Board Petitioners claimed that the EPA' s failure to submit the Endangerment Finding to the Science Advisory Board (SAB) violates its mandate to "make available" to the SAB "any proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation under the Clean Air Act" at the time it provides the same "to any other Federal agency for formal review and comment." The court noted that it wasn't clear this obligation was even triggered because it wasn't clear that the EPA provided the Endangerment Finding to any Federal agency for formal review and comment-it had only been submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs pursuant to Executive Order 12,866 for informal review. The court found that even if the EPA violated its SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002263-00004 mandate by failing to submit the Endangerment Finding to the SAB, Petitioners did not show this error was prejudicial to the rulemaking. Denial of petitions seeking reconsideration of Endangerment Finding In the final challenge, Petitioners argued the EPA erred by denying all ten petitions for reconsideration of the finding. Petitioners asserted that internal documents and emails obtained from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit undermined the scientific evidence upon which the EPA relied. When determining whether to commence reconsideration of a rule, EPA considers an objection to be of "central relevance to the outcome" of that rule "if it provides substantial support for the argument that the regulation should be revised." Additionally, the party raising the objection must demonstrate that it was impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period. The court rejected Petitioners' assertion, finding that they failed to provide substantial support for their arguments that the Endangerment Findings should have been revised. The assessment had relied on over 18,000 peer-reviewed studies, and two errors identified in IPCC reports were harmless because EPA did not actually rely on such errors to reach the positive Endangerment Finding. Isolated errors identified by Petitioners did not rise to the level of substantial evidence required to support their arguments to overturn the Endangerment Findings. Challenges to the Tailpipe Rule Petitioners did not directly challenge the vehicle emission standards set by the Tailpipe Rule, and instead argued the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to consider and justify the costs of its conclusion that the Rule triggers stationary-source regulation under the PSD Program and Title V. The court rejected this argument and held that once EPA made the Endangerment Finding, the language of section 202(a)(l) created a non-discretionary duty that the EPA adopt regulation applicable to vehicle GHG emissions. The court noted this interpretation was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Petitioners also advanced a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act, alleging that EPA failed to show that the proposed standards "would meaningfully mitigate the alleged endangerment." The court rejected this argument, indicating that petitioner misread earlier D.C. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002263-00005 Circuit decisions on EPA air regulations. EPA was under no requirement to establish a particular level of mitigation that the regulation had to achieve. Instead, EPA was only required to show that the Tailpipe Rule would contribute to "meaningful mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions." Finally, the court rejected an argument made by Petitioners that EPA should have considered the cost of stationary source permitting that would follow adoption of the Tailoring Rule. The D.C. Circuit had previously held that section 202(a)(2) reference only compliance costs to the motor vehicle industry and does not mandate consideration of costs to other entities not directly subject to the proposed tailpipe emission standards. Challenges to EP A's interpretation of PSD Permitting, Timing and Tailoring Rules Petitioners challenged EPA' s longstanding interpretation of the scope of the permitting requirements for construction and modification of major emitting facilities under the CAA. Since 1978, EPA has defined "major stationary source" as a source that emits major amounts of "any air pollutant regulated under the [CAA]." This interpretation held through EPA' s PSD regulations adopted in 1980 and 2002. "Any pollutant" was interpreted by the EPA to include both criteria pollutants for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and noncriteria pollutants. As a result, when EPA determined that GHGs would become a regulated pollutant, emissions of more than 100 or 250 tpy of GHGs would trigger a PSD permitting requirement. Petitioners challenged this interpretation and argued that EPA could and should have avoided extending the PSD permitting program to major GHG emitters. The court adopted a plain meaning of section 169( 1), which requires PSD permits for stationary sources emitting major amounts of "any air pollutant." Both the EPA and the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA clearly established that GHGs are air pollutants. As a result, the court rejected Petitioners' arguments that EPA should not have extended the PSD permitting program to major GHG emitters. The court rejected the Petitioners' alternative interpretations of the PSD permitting triggers, as none cast doubt on the unambiguous nature of the statute. Petitioners also challenged the Tailoring and Timing Rules established by EPA to facilitate initial regulations of GHGs. The court determined Petitioners lacked standing to challenge these two Rules because none had suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of the rules. Instead, the court found the Timing and Tailoring Rules actually mitigated Petitioners' purported injuries, as many would be subject to PSD and Title V permitting requirements at an earlier time absent the rules. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002263-00006 Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002263-00007 From: Joseph Bast Thur 11/16/2017 9:17:24 PM Washington Post spies on our Red Team meeting, again Energy Freedom Score Card.pdf Sent: Subject: Friends, Washington Post reporters continue their almost hysterical focus on The Heartland Institute's efforts to participate in the national and international debate over climate change. Apparently they were able to record our Red Team briefing in Houston last week, and even stole, scanned and posted a document that was circulated at the meeting. The article is below. The stolen document is attached. If you can improve on this rough effort at an "Energy Freedom Score Card," please send me your suggestions. Maybe I can find the anonymous author and ask him to update it. Joe Washington Post 11/16/17 This group thinks Trump hasn't done enough to unravel environmental rules. Here's its wish list. The activists gathered behind closed doors in a Houston hotel meeting room last week had long existed on the political fringe. They'd dismissed the science behind climate change, preached the virtues of fossil fuels and seethed about the Environmental Protection Agency's power and reach. They also had been largely ignored by many top federal officials. Until the election of President Trump. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002264-00001 But now, at the private meeting sponsored by a free-market think tank, the Heartland Institute, the activists were both giddy and grumpy. So much of what the Trump administration had done to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations was positive, they agreed, as were the White House's efforts to promote the oil and gas industry and halt federal action to combat climate change. Heartland officials handed out a three-page "Energy Freedom Scorecard" that evaluated the extent to which Trump and his deputies had delivered on their top policy priorities. As much as they welcome the administration's efforts, the scorecard made clear that they think the president could do more, much more. The scorecard, obtained by The Washington Post, and the private discussion, which was recorded and shared by a participant, highlight the extent to which those on the right are pushing Cabinet members such as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to enact even more sweeping changes. And they show how conservatives are working to place key allies in top policy posts in the White House and elsewhere, including on boards that help guide federal policy. "There are ways to get names in, and we've used every door and window and crack in the wall we can use," David Schnare remarked per the recording. Schnare served on Trump's beachhead team for the EPA but was forced out this spring after clashing with Pruitt. The scorecard lists several items as "done," from rescinding Obama-era rules curbing carbon emissions from power plants and opting out of the Paris climate agreement to reducing "government funding of environmental advocacy groups" by limiting legal settlements and approving the Keystone XL pipeline as well as other oil pipelines. Nineteen other items fall into the "started" category, such as cutting "government funding of climate change research"; repealing "unnecessary restrictions and state bans on fracking"; and ending "conflict of interest on scientific review boards." But 15 goals listed "not done" include ending federal tax credits to wind and solar producers and no longer basing military planning and strategies "on the predictions of flawed climate models." Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely confirmed that the group produced the scorecard but declined to elaborate. The fact that so many priorities remain on the to-do list, which was drafted on Oct. 15, helps explain why several attendees at the private session still groused about the administration's pace. Schnare and other participants also railed about other issues. Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Myron Ebcll, who headed the EPA's transition team for the administration, described its "key failing" as a "totally dysfunctional personnel process." "We only got people nominated to the subordinate positions at EPA this summer," Ebell said. Schnare criticized both Pruitt and the White House for not trying to revoke EPA' s 2009 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002264-00002 "endangerment finding," which provided the scientific basis for the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. "So the question then becomes, what pressure can you put on Mr. Pruitt to make him do it?" Schnare told the group, before starting to mimic his former boss's twang. "The answer he gave me was, 'Dave, if the president tells me to do it, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'll decide what I'm going to do.' Well, okay, and then I resigned." At another point, Schnare raised the idea of using the threat of litigation to force the EPA to act an approach conservatives have dubbed "'--"'--'"---""'-'--"'---"--"'--"=," and one that Pruitt curtailed after criticizing it for benefiting environmental groups. "If we come up with this case and say, well, this is what we want to do, and then we send a little note off to Scott Pruitt and say, 'We are going to sue you, would you like to sit down and talk.' It's not exactly sue and settle, it's just, 'We are going to sue your a-, and you ought to settle,'" Schnare said on the recording. His audience laughed in response. But Pruitt, in a m1ss10n. message for the Heartland gathering, emphasized their shared sense of "Think back to Nov. 8 of last year, the lack of optimism, the concern about where we were headed as a country. And think about where we are today," he===-"-"'---"'-"-"'--'---'--"'=· "So, I want to say to you at the Heartland Institute, thanks for what you're doing to advance energy. Thank you for what you're doing to advance natural resources." While neither Pruitt nor Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt could make the meeting in person, Interior energy policy counselor Vincent De Vito did address the crowd. Asked this week why De Vito had chosen to speak to the conservative group, Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift said in an email, "The summit was an opportunity to communicate the progress the department has made on energy and restoring multiple-use and access to federal lands, as well as share ideas and perspectives on how to achieve energy dominance." The institute's scorecard on energy issues, Swift added, reflected that Interior "is making incredible progress on restoring traditional multiple uses and access to public lands and toward cutting costly and job-killing regulations on responsible energy development." One environmentalist had a different take on the gathering's discussion. "You'd think these guys would be happy," Greenpeace USA researcher Connor Gibson said in an email Wednesday. Instead, "at a time when they have extraordinary power, they have formed a circular firing squad, mocking each other for not holding extreme enough positions and chastising Trump's EPA for not prioritizing an attack on the legal mandate for EPA to control carbon emissions." The closed-door discussion last week certainly featured praise for Trump and his deputies. Heartland's chief executive Joseph Bast, for example, made a point of explaining to his colleagues how the president's rhetoric on issues such as climate change had already produced SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002264-00003 results. "I think the president has done a nice job of not talking about global warming. When' s the last time you heard Donald Trump say 'climate change' or 'global warming'?" Bast said, according to the recording. "That's shifting the debate. The less the president talks about it, the less often it appears in news stories and on TV, the less often it's going to be an issue. So, this is how big issues disappear." The =-"=-'-'---'--'--'~=..t---"'--'"---'--"=at what was dubbed the America First Energy Conference amounted to a lengthy assault on the conclusions of mainstream science and federal climate action. There were sessions on the "future of coal," "the cost of excessive regulation" and the "benefits of ending the war on fossil fuels." Speakers assailed most climate scientists as alarmists, extolled the benefits of fossil fuels and blasted environmental activists, whom they equated with government overreach. "People don't trust the environmental left. They know they're crazy," one speaker said. Another criticized the country's growing number of wind turbines, noting that they kill large numbers of eagles and other birds each year. Still another speaker dismissed efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions to combat climate change - a cause embraced by literally every other nation in the world - and instead argued that increased emissions were helping crop growth. "We are greening the planet with carbon dioxide," he said, and cutting back on fossil fuels would be a "disaster. ... There is no downside to carbon dioxide. It is the breath oflife." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002264-00004 Energy Freedom Score Card (as of October 15, 2017) Mission Statement: Affordable, reliable, and plentiful energy enables us to protect the environment while also creating jobs and the goods and services we need. Expensive and unreliable energy, like the kind produced by ethanol and commercial wind and solar companies, destroys jobs and harms the enviromnent. Fossil fuels are the foundation of economic growth and prosperity. Taxing them or making them more scarce causes economic growth to slow, makes food and other essential goods more expensive, and many of the good things we take for granted are lost. We owe it to future generations to leave the world a better place than we found it. Renewable energies don't protect the environment. They actually harm it by being less efficient and more land-intensive than fossil fuels. Status Recommendation 1. Rein in EPA Repeal mmecessary regulations affecting air and water quality and energy production, end the abuse of science, end subsidies to leftist groups. DONE Withdraw implementation of the Waters of the U.S. rule. STARTED Some regs on coal-powered generation have been removed or delayed. Others are up for review. STARTED Trump ended terms of many longtime members of science advisory boards with conflicts of interest. STARTED Pruitt's withdrawal of the CPP said there are no health effects below EPA's standard for PM-2.5. STARTED Trump said Obama's preliminary approval of higher CAFE standards will be reviewed. Roll back recent EPA regulations on ozone, small particles, and other air pollutants that are based on discredited epidemiology and toxicology. STARTED Pruitt announced an end to "sueand-settle" NOT DONE Dramatically reduce govermnent funding of enviromnental advocacy groups, including funds delivered to such groups through the "sue and settle" scam. End the use of "secret science" by EPA and other regulatory agencies. NOT DONE End reliance on near-zero risk ratios. NOT DONE Enforce the Data Quality Act with respect to the junk science promoted and funded by EPA on air pollution and toxicology. Congress should repeal the Delaney clause, which essentially commits the FDA and other govermnent agencies to an impossible zero risk standard. NOT DONE End conflicts of interest on scientific review boards. Fonnally end the use of the "linear no-threshold assumption" in determining safe levels of exposure to pollutants. Roll back Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which result in the deaths of thousands of car and truck passengers every year, needlessly increase the price of new cars, and favor foreign car manufacturers. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002265-00001 2. Repeal Global Warming Regulations End the war on fossil fuels by withdrawing from the Paris and FCCC, the endangerment finding, the social cost of carbon, Clean Power Plan, and other regulations justified by global warming alarmism. DONE Withdraw from the Paris Accord and stop funding the Green Climate Fund. DONE Retract and rescind "social cost of carbon" estimates and stop including them in required cost-benefit analysis of new regulations. Withdraw/repeal the Clean Power Plan. DONE STARTED Pruitt has announced plans for a Red Team, progress has been slow. STARTED At least some research grants are being cancelled, the president's budget called for a 30% cut to EPA budget. NOT DONE NOT DONE NOT DONE NOT DONE Create a President's Council on Climate Change charged with cutting through the politics and bias that infected climate science and policymaking during the Obama administration and advising the President on what policies to repeal and what policies to pursue. Dramatically reduce government funding of climate change research pending the findings of the new President's Council on Climate Change. When funding for such research resumes, require that equal amounts go to studying natural and man-made climate change. Withdraw from the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. Stop basing military planning and strategies on the predictions of flawed climate models. Support legislation repealing Obama's Executive Order 13693, which requires the Department of Defense to create a number of climate change programs and policies. End funding for the United Nations' biased climate change programs, in particular the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 3. End Climate Profiteering End subsidies, tax credits, feed-in tariffs, regulatory carve-outs, and mandates that benefit wind, solar, and ethanol producers yet produce no enviromnental benefits. STARTED Some states have frozen renewable energy mandate targets, some have considered repealing existing mandates, but progress is slow. STARTED* A DOE proposal to FERC would start to level the playing field between coal and renewables. See footnote below. STARTED Trump's budget proposed moving forward with Yucca Mountain STARTED Trump froze current ethanol production minimum rather than raising it. Repeal state Renewable Power Mandates (RPMs) where they exist and oppose their option in states that don't currently have them. Have FERC grant higher rates to coal generation to recognize the important role they play in provide base-load energy. Remove regulatory obstacles to the expansion of nuclear power and open the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Abolish the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program, which mandates that refiners add ethanol to gasoline. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002265-00002 NOT DONE End federal tax credits to wind and solar producers. NOT DONE Convince state PUCs not to implement "zombie" Obama-era regulations and subsidies that lead to the premature closing of coal-powered generation. Hold solar and wind power producers to the same environmental protection standards as are applied to coal and natural gas power generators. NOT DONE 4. Use It, Don't Lose It Achieve "energy dominance" by maximizing U.S. production of fossil fuels. End excessive restrictions of exploration, development, and production of fossil fuels on public lands as well as private lands, DONE Approve Keystone XL and other pipelines blocked by President Obama. STARTED Some restrictions have been withdrawn, Interior is reducing size of some national monuments. STARTED Trump ended an Obama-era antifracking rule, states are debating restrictions on fracking. STARTED Roll back unnecessary regulations on hydraulic fracturing, mining, and oil and gas exploration offshore and on federal lands. Repeal unnecessary restrictions and state bans on fracking. Expand U.S. exports of coal, liquefied natural gas, and oil as a way to reduce the reliance of allies and other countries on energy imports from Russia and other bad actors in the international community. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002265-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Jay Lehr (External)! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! Joseph Bast L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·' Wed 11/15/201710:06:00 PM Jay Lehr to lead team critique of Climate Science Special Report Friends, Jay Lehr has agreed to serve as senior editor of a critique of the "Climate Science Special Report." If you would like to serve on a team of scientists, economists, lawyers, ___ §.IJ9.-9.t.b~rn __ w_bg_9.§1J __ h~!p__ write that critique, please contact Jay at [__ Ex.__ 6 _-_Persona_l_ Privacy_! A tentative deadline for release of this critique has been set for the end of January 2018. Perhaps obviously, a detailed critique of this 670-page report cannot be ready on such a short time line, but we hope for a clear and well documented reply nevertheless. If you are aware of other organizations or individuals who are producing critiques, I hope you will bring them to Jay's attention, and Jay to theirs. Best regards! Joe From: Joseph Bast Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:47 PM Subject: Climate Science Special Report released The Climate Science Special Report, "volume one of the Fourth National Climate Assessment," was released a few minutes ago. The entire report can be found here:-'--'-=='--'--=-==='-'--'-==::....:====::..:.. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002266-00001 But in August the Trump administration disbanded the interagency committee that was working on the report: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ energy-environment/wp/2017 /08/20/the-trumpadministration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climatechange/?utm _term=.5c0daalfba4 l Not sure why it was nevertheless released ... probably the deep state at work. Here were my reactions to this report, from my earlier review of the draft back in August. Scientific Critique of USGCRP's 2017 Climate Science Special Report The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a joint program of 13 U.S. national government agencies charged with developing a program to "understand, assess, predict, and respond to" global climate change. It produces reports to Congress every four years titled "National Climate Assessment." The three reports released to date have all exaggerated the amount of global warming, the human role in that warming, the negative impacts of the same, and the certainty of the science surrounding the causes and consequences of climate change. For example, a team of climate scientists led by Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute said of the Third National Climate Assessment: This National Assessment is much closer to pseudoscience than it is to science. It is as explanatory as Sigmund Freud. It clearly believes that virtually everything in our society is tremendously dependent the surface temperature, and, because of that, we are headed towards certain and inescapable destruction, unless we take its advice and decarbonize our economy, pronto. Unfortunately, the Assessment can't quite tell us how to accomplish that, because no one knows how. h s://ob·ect.cato.or The latest (June 28) draft of the Fourth National Climate Assessment is similarly flawed. This brief critique makes ten points which track the content and organization of the assessment: 1. The report is a legacy product of a political regime that captured and "weaponized" this government agency to advance its agenda, much as it did to the IRS, Justice Department, and other departments. The report was written by hold-overs from the Obama administration, and represents only the very biased and politicized perspective of a small clique of government scientists on a complex issue. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002266-00002 2. The report fails to provide an objective and comprehensive review of the available literature. Contrary to media reports, the report was not made available to respected climate scientists for peer reviewed. Several scientists report that their requests for drafts were rejected. [Soon and Happer, others?] The final draft shows no evidence of being informed by the efforts of critics of the Obama administration's legislative agenda or even a single reference to the multiple reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Nf PCC). 3. The report relies on past reports by the United Nation's Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the Trump administration properly rejects. The report refers to the IPCC's 2013 report as "rigorously-reviewed international assessments," when in fact the IPCC is controversial, scandal-ridden, and its procedures fall far short of the requirements of the Data Quality Act. [Why Scie77tists Disagree, pp. 38-44] 4. The report's most frequently quoted conclusion, "that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20 th century," is only a restatement of the opinions of activists and advocates in the field of global warming, and not a statement about the underlying science, which remains incomplete and uncertain. This is the same flawed reasoning and semantic games as used by the IPCC to make the same statement. It is not a statement of scientific fact, but rather of "some experts' opinions" without any basis in probability analysis or scientific forecasting. [InterAcademy Council Audit, p. 6lfil 5. The report denies the existence of the "pause" in global warming during the past 18 years or longer, something even the IPCC admits. It cites manipulated and unreliable databases when superior databases are readily available, apparently in an effort to once again "hide the decline." 6. The report ignores at least 27 peer-reviewed articles saying climate sensitivity is lower than the amount assumed by IPCCC and EPA. Climate sensitivity is the amount of temperature change likely to result from a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from preindustrial times. If the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than we thought four years ago, this report ought to reflect that fact. [Cited in Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs 2015; reproduced in WhyScie77lists Disag ee pp 66-69] 7. The report denies extensive evidence that weather is not becoming more extreme over time and physical evidence explaining why it will be less extreme in a warmer world. It recites Al Gore's litany of extreme weather predictions even though IPCC and independent scholars have thoroughly debunked it. [Chapter 7 of CCR-ff: Physical Science] 8. The report repeats false claims about the loss of arctic sea ice - falsifying trends and causes and making false forecasts - in order to support its narrative of catastrophic man-made global warming. Artie sea ice is not at historic low levels, it varies naturally due to known and unknown external forcings and internal variability, and it is not evidence of a human impact on climate. [Chapter 5 of CCR n:Physical Science] 9. The report misrepresents scenarios and computer-based simulations of future climate conditions as scientific forecasts of future climate conditions, when in fact it is well known among scientists that future climates cannot be predicted. Prof Scott Armstrong, the world's SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002266-00003 leading authority on scientific forecasting, and coauthors have shown conclusively that the predictions made by the IPCC, EPA, and other government agencies are merely the opinions of some experts, not scientific forecasts, and cannot provide a reliable basis for public policy. 10. The report misrepresents sea-level rise and changes in ocean pH levels, portraying both as dire catastrophes resulting from man-made global warming, when in fact there is considerable evidence that sea level has not accelerated from its historic rates and considerable evidence that higher pH levels have positive as well as adverse effects on ocean life. [Chapter 6 of CCR-H: Physical Science] Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@ heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002266-00004 To: From: Nonoy Oplasl Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Joseph Bast '·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-' Sent: Wed 11/15/2017 5:45:04 PM Subject: Heartland's America First Energy Conference in BusinessWorld, the Philippines' premier business newspaper Thanks, Nonoy! Joe From: Nonoy Oplasj Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11 :38 AM ' To: Jim Lakely; Nikki Comerford; Joseph Bast; paul driessen Gmail 09; Willie Soon; Dave Legates; Joe Leimkuhler; Myron Ebell; Vincent DeVito Subject: Articles about the Heartland Energy Conference Hi Jim, Nikki, Joe and all, May I share with you my recent articles on energy in my column in Business World, the Philippines' premier business newspaper. 1. US energy trading and implications for Asia and Philippines, Nov. 16, 2017, h (I mentioned the Heartland conference, presentations by Joe Leimkuhler and Paul Driessen) 2. US energy policies and implications in Asia and Philippines, Oct. 31, 2017, h (also mentioned the Heartland energy conf. here) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002267-00001 3. Airport transfers and tourism, Nov. 10, 2017, h ://bworldonline.com/ai Ort-transfers-tourism/ (still mentioned the Heartland conf here) Last month, I have a 2-parts debate with a former PH Secretary of Economic Planning who advocates a high carbon tax. 4. A high carbon tax is irrational, Oct. 19, 2017, httr ://b\vorldonline.com/high-carbon-tax-irrational/ 5. Why a carbon tax is wrong, Oct. 12, 2017, httr ://b\vorldonline.com/carbon-tax-\vron,.:/ Thanks again Jim, Nikki. I hope to write about the presentations by Dave Legates, Myron Ebell, others in my future energy articles. Nonoy Bienvenido "Nonoy" Oplas, Jr. President, Minimal Government Thinkers Columnist, BusinessWorld, "My Cup of Liberty" Fellow, Stratbase-Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi) Author, Health Choices and Responsibilities, (2011) Author, Liberalism Rule of Law and Civil Socie (2014) Mobile: l.Ex.__ 6 _-_Personal__ Privacy _.i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002267 -00002 [)q Firus-free. www.avastcom SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002267 -00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 11/15/2017 3:19:47 PM Finding "reviews" on Google Friends, Several of you replied to my request that you post a one-sentence review of Heartland on Google by reporting the "review" feature doesn't appear on the search results page I linked to in my previous message. Heartland's deputy communications director explains: The reviews are part of the Google Maps platform. If you aren't seeing the Google Maps widget on the right sidebar after you search, you can go to maps.google.com and search for Heartland Institute Arlington Heights, IL. You should find our entire Google 'profile' with address, photos, reviews, etc. It does appear you have to be logged in to Google to actually write a review, and you will be prompted to login when you click on the 'write a review' link. I use Google Maps frequently, which apparently is why this came up on my screen when I Google'd "Heartland Institute." I'll appreciate it if you try again. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002268-00001 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002268-00002 heartlandinstitute Top stories SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A _ 00002269-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/14/2017 6:40:39 PM Can you post a one-sentence review of Heartland on Google? Friends, I just Google' d "Heartland Institute" and noticed a section titled "reviews" under our contact information. 20 reviews, nearly all of them giving us a I on a scale of I to 5 written by alleged teachers pretending to be upset about our work on climate change. It looks like it is easy to add a review ... can you spend just a minute right now and do this? Thanks in advance ... Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002270-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 11/14/2017 2:27:31 PM Heartland's America First Energy Plan covered by Buzzfeed We were a "motley crowd"! Joe administrations-ear?utm term=. Buzzfeed November 13, 2017 These Climate Skeptics Have The Trump Administration's Ear. Here's Their Wishlist. Several federal officials attended an energy conference hosted by the conservative Heartland Institute. The group of climate skeptics is celebrating Trump's environmental rollbacks and aiming for even bigger policy changes. Zahra Hi ji BuzzF eed News Reporter HOUSTON-A controversial free-market think tank, after years on the political fringe, has found an audience in the Trump administration. At an energy meeting of the Heartland Institute last week, some of the nation's most vocal climate deniers gushed about the Trump administration's rapid rollback of environmental and climate rules and set their sights on a far more ambitious plan: gutting the policy that allows the EPA to treat carbon as an air pollutant. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002271-00001 The America First Energy Conference drew several federal officials. The Interior Department's counselor for energy policy, Vincent DeVito, gave a keynote over dinner; Richard Westerdale II, a senior energy adviser at the State Department, was a panelist; and Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, addressed attendees in a pre-taped video. The meeting's mostly celebratory panels focused on climate myths, fossil fuels, and the dramatic shift in environmental policy under Trump: his announcement to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the proposed repeal of pollution rules for power plants, and EPA' s overhaul of its science advisory boards. "I can assure you none of us feel like we wasted our time," David Stevenson, a member of Trump's EPA transition team, said on the "Reforming EPA" panel. "It's like Christmas with all the things that have happened in the last year and all the things that are going to happen next year," he said. Other speakers strategized a lofty goal for the rest of the Trump presidency: reversing an EPA declaration known as the "endangerment finding." Under the Obama administration, the agency concluded that climate change poses a danger to public health. It's the foundation of the agency's authority to regulate carbon emissions as an air pollutant, and has been backed up by the Supreme Court. To many legal experts, the endangerment finding is untouchable, or close to it. "I would be hardpressed to guess at or articulate a theory whereby the Supreme Court would take the position that this wasn't already decided as a final matter," Joseph Goffman, executive director of Harvard's Environmental Law Program and a former EPA official, told BuzzFeed News. The conference participants, too, recognized that gutting the policy would be tough. But under Trump, they see an opportunity that might not come around again, and are gearing up for a legal battle. "If you have a compliant and helpful administration, I think you can just tear it down," said David Schnare, another panelist who served on the Trump transition team. "If you've got an administration that does not want to go down that road, I think it's very much like a marathon." Although the Heartland Institute has held many conferences questioning the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, this was its first to focus on energy more broadly, with the agenda designed specifically around Trump's America First energy plan, according to spokesperson Jim Lakely. The motley crowd of about 220 people included academics, a couple dozen Republican state lawmakers, free-market supporters, federal energy officials, and executives from small energy companies. Big Oil was notably absent. (In fact, it was still a sore spot at this conference that some corporate donors, including ExxonMobil, walked away from Heartland between 2007 and 2012.) SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002271-00002 The keynote speeches and about half of the 12 sessions dealt with energy, mostly about removing regulatory red tape to produce more coal, gas, and oil. "The war on American energy is completely over," said DeVito, who joined the Interior Department to help coordinate its energy portfolio in May. He boasted there's been an increase in coal mining and new land has opened up to oil and gas drilling under Trump. The other sessions, however, centered around climate denial or reducing environmental protections, and most participants openly questioned whether man-made climate change was real. Sometimes it was an odd mix. On the "Energy and National Security" panel, former NASA engineer Hal Doiron and former Navy admiral Thomas Hayward talked about "climate alarmists" being a national security threat. They shared a stage with Westerdale, a top energy official at the State Department who outlined the Trump administration's plan to become "energy dominant," such as expanding US energy exports and related technologies. But he did not mention climate change. Pruitt, who while head of the EPA has repeatedly questioned the link between human activity and global warming, also didn't mention it in his video address. "So I want to say to you at the Heartland Institute, thanks for what you are doing to advance energy," Pruitt said. "Thank you for what you are doing to advance natural resources. We've been blessed immensely as a country to whom much is given, much is acquired." But Pruitt's team, according to Lakely, has reached out to the Heartland Institute for a list of scientists and policy experts who are skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming. Some of those names ended up on the list of the agency's new science advisers released earlier this month. "Stanley Young was one of the people - we told the agency he was good on the ideas," Lakely said, and now the North Carolina statistician is on the board advising Pruitt on science policy. Another new EPA adviser, Robert Phalen of the University of California, Irvine, was also at the meeting. Both Young and Phalen have argued that pollution standards for small particulates in the air (called PM2.5) are too restrictive. Referring to these two new appointments, Steve Milloy, a third EPA transition team member, said to the crowd: "We are making progress." The attendees had differing priorities for the Trump administration. Some advocated abolishing the EPA, as Trump once suggested on the campaign trail. Others just wanted it slimmed down. Other suggestions included redoing the EPA' s valuation for a human life, rolling back standards for small particulates and ozone, and updating the cost-benefit analysis of new regulations to include job impacts. The most urgent goal, though, seemed to be eliminating the endangerment finding. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002271-00003 "The endangerment finding will hamstring the full exploitation of fossil fuels," Harry MacDougald said at the "Endangerment Finding" session. He was part of the legal team that unsuccessfully challenged the finding at the DC Circuit Court in 2012, and then failed to convince the Supreme Court to take up the case in 2013. Speaking about the Trump administration, he added, "they don't understand how strong it is. We are doing our best to help [Pruitt] understand." Last month, EPA head Pruitt told Bloomberg that any review of the endangerment finding would take time, and did not mention any immediate plans to do so. MacDougald encouraged audience members to write their own petition to the EPA to undo the policy, or write letters in support of existing petitions: On January 20, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council petitioned the agency to reconsider the finding, arguing its underlying science is wrong. MacDougald helped write the submission. About a month later, two other groups filed a similar petition. A third petition, one challenging the legal rather than scientific basis of the finding, was filed in May by an Austin-based conservative think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation. MacDougald noted that Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump's pick to run the Council on Environmental Quality, comes from the Texas Public Policy Forum. "If you are trying to pick the winner in this horse race, you might want to put your money on them." If petitions don't work, the panelists said, there's also a plan to sue. "We're going to do that," Schnare said. "I think we're going to look at specific farmers -large farmers -who are harmed by reductions in CO2." Schnare didn't explain exactly how farmers were being harmed, but the idea that carbon dioxide helps plants grow was a popular talking point at the conference. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002271-00004 Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002271-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/13/2017 3:27:30 PM Just one more: Heartland's America First Energy Conference in PBS Frontline -officialsattend-event-hosted-by-skeptics/ PBS Frontline November 10, 2017 Amid U.N. Climate Talks, Trump Officials Attend Event Hosted By Skeptics by Katic Worth BONN, Germany -As global leaders gathered here at the annual United Nations climate talks Thursday, several senior Tmmp administration energy and environment officials were thousands of miles away participating in a much different kind of conference: One hosted by climate change skeptics. While the focus in Bonn is on combating climate change, at the America First Energy Conference in Houston, hosted by the libertarian Heartland Institute, the talk was about fossil fuels and how - as one of the event's panels asserted - "human activity ... is not causing a climate crisis." Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who is not expected to go to Bonn, appeared at the conference with a welcome video to the attendees and speakers - many of whom were from groups like Heartland that reject the scientific consensus on climate change. "There's great optimism across the country, and I hope you're feeling that in Houston, Texas," Pmitt said in the video. "God speed in what you're doing." Under Pruitt, the EPA has moved to roll back regulations related to climate change, notably the Obama administration's signature domestic effort to limit carbon emissions, the Clean Power SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002272-00001 Plan. The Heartland event included discussions on energy and national security; the future of coal; the costs of excessive regulations; and the benefits to health, agriculture and the environment of ending the "war on fossil fuels." Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely called the timing of the two conferences "a happy coincidence." He said Heartland has been impressed with President Donald Trump's energy policy and conceived of the conference as a forum to discuss its progress. Heartland has sought to promote a more skeptical view on climate change, arguing that the near-unanimous consensus among scientists that humans are changing the climate is incorrect. Earlier this year, it mailed climate change skeptical materials to hundreds of thousands of science teachers across the country. At the Houston conference, the keynote speaker was Vincent De Vito, a senior official at the Department of Interior involved in shaping policy around energy development on public lands. Richard Westerdale, a senior energy adviser for the State Department who worked at ExxonMobil for two decades, spoke on a panel on energy and national security. Also at the conference was Myron Ebell, who led Trump's transition team for the EPA and has frequently rejected the threat of climate change. In his keynote, DeVito said the Trump administration is moving as quickly as possible to open up the Interior Department's lands to fossil fuel extraction, which he said would generate billions of dollars a year for the government. "The war on American energy is completely over," said DeVito of the Trump era in his keynote address. "We are becoming the strongest energy superpower that the world has ever known." Meanwhile, at the U.N.'s COP23 conference in Bonn, the United States has taken a backseat to ongoing international negotiations that address global warming. Notably, it became the sole U.N. party to reject the Paris Agreement, the historic 2015 climate accord, after both Nicaragua and Syria signed onto the agreement in recent weeks. In June, Trump vowed to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, calling it "draconian" and arguing it was not made on good terms for American taxpayers. A full U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would take a few years. As in years past, the U.S. is being represented here by a State Department-led delegation, including some members that were involved in creating the Paris Agreement. This year's negotiations are focused on teasing out the rules that will govern the climate accord. In previous years the U.S. has hosted a large pavilion and dozens of events showing off U.S. efforts to curb carbon emissions. This year, the U.S. declined to host a pavilion and has organized just one event: A panel on how to make fossil fuels and nuclear power cleaner and more efficient. This has inspired sneers from participants in the Bonn talks, many of whom believe keeping fossil fuels in the ground is the best way to stave off global warming's most catastrophic SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002272-00002 consequences. Just last week, 13 federal agencies released a report saying that evidence of the human role in global warming is stronger than ever. The Trnmp administration did not stand in the way of the report's release, as critics had feared, but downplayed its findings. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is in Bonn, said the timing of the Heartland conference was meant to confuse the public on the issue of climate change during the U.N. conference. "Trnmp is a dream come trne for the climate denial operation, which has always craved legitimacy," Whitehouse said. "Trnmp being willing to send government officials to one of these phony-baloney things is really regrettable because there's no science behind it." This story was produced as part of a collaboration between FRONTLINE and l7ie Grozmdfruth Proiect. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002272-00003 computer. SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/13/2017 3:21 :11 PM Heartland's America First Energy Conference in Courthouse News https://www.courthousenews.com/right-wing science/ groups-accuse-epa-using-junk- Courthouse News November 13, 2017 Right-Wing Groups Accuse EPA of Using 'Junk Science' November 13 2017 CAMERON LANGFORD HOUSTON (CN) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "was always junk sciencefueled" and the government should get "out of science," so arctic drilling and a revived coal industry can boost the economy, speakers said at a fossil fuels conference in Houston sponsored by right-wing groups whose work was praised by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The Heartland Institute advocates for decreased government regulation and has been described as the leading U.S. organization pushing climate-change skepticism. The Illinois-based institute hired former Kansas congressman and Tea Party Caucus Chairman Tim Huelskamp as its president in July. Several conservative groups and political action committees cosponsored the conference, including The Heritage Foundation, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Ayn Rand Institute. David Koch, a top executive at the energy and commodities conglomerate Koch Industries, founded Americans for Prosperity. To celebrate the first anniversary of Trump's election, The Heartland Institute held an America SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002273-00001 First Energy Conference on Thursday at a Houston hotel, where Pruitt praised its work in a taped message. Since taking over the EPA in February, Pruitt has rolled back President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdrawn the Waters of the United States rule, claiming it puts too many bodies of water, even dry creek beds, under federal jurisdiction. "The attitude before we arrived said that you can't be about growth and jobs and also be a good steward of the environment," Pruitt said via video. "That's inaccurate. That's a false narrative. "I want to say to you at The Heartland Institute, thanks for what you are doing to advance energy. Thank you for what you're doing to advance natural resources. We've been blessed immensely as a country." Several panels focused on how the EPA is changing under Trump and Pruitt, and multiple panelists criticized the agency's history in the pre-Trump era. "The EPA was always junk science-fueled," said Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com and author of "Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA," during a "Reforming EPA" panel. "We need to get government out of science, especially in the EPA," he said. Milloy claimed the Obama administration paid climate scientists to doctor data to bolster the narrative that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. Panelists said they want to undo the Endangerment Finding, an official proclamation from the EPA in 2009 that says greenhouse gases are driving global warming. Milloy' s prescription for the agency is simple: "We want to shrink the EPA," he said. One panelist likened Trump's industry-friendly stance on climate change to a holiday. "We had a door opened, and it was opened when Trump was elected president. ... It's like Christmas," said David Stevenson, director of the Center for Energy Competitiveness at the Caesar Rodney Institute and a member of Trump's EPA transition team. For The Heartland Institute, the consensus among world scientists that burning fossil fuels and their release of carbon dioxide is heating the planet and increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters is blasphemy. They say carbon dioxide is good for the Earth. "Carbon dioxide is vital plant food," said Paul Driessen, senior fellow at the nonprofit institutes the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Driessen called carbon dioxide "the miracle molecule that makes life on Earth possible. Rising atmospheric CO2 levels are actually greening our planet by spurring crop, forest and grassland SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002273-00002 plants to grow faster and better for the past three decades," Driessen said. "Plant experts say that some 70 percent of that greening is due to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and that too is an enormous dividend worth countless billions and maybe even trillions of dollars." But authors of the "Greening of the Earth" study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change in April 2016, which Driessen cited, found that while carbon dioxide does contribute to greenery, the long-term impacts could be limited. "Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in France, said in an interview with NASA. But Heartland panelist John Dunn, a retired physician and licensed attorney, said he shares Driessen's optimism for a world with abundant carbon dioxide. "I would rather be in a warm place than a cold place," Dunn said. The United States gets about one-third of its electricity from coal and one-third from natural gas. The rest comes from nuclear plants and wind and solar power, according to conference panelists. Many scoffed at the idea that wind and solar power will soon become the dominant forms of energy production in the United States. "The environmentalists have this dream of everything running by solar power and wind, and we know that's not going to happen," said Richard Trzupek, a chemist and consultant for an Illinois engineering firm. He said the U.S. Energy Information Administration did a study under the Obama administration that predicted the percentage of energy the country will get from wind and solar will increase to just 17 percent by 2040. "I think it shows that the real choices we are going to be making here are between coal and nuclear and natural gas," he said. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican and Tea Party member, said in a highenergy speech that growing up in Louisiana, where 80,000 jobs are directly tied to the energy industry, he came to appreciate that oil and gas drilling has built the middle class better than any industry in the United States. Landry represented Louisiana in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 to 2013. Louisiana loses about a football field of coastal land every 100 minutes to erosion caused by canals and pipelines installed for oil and gas extraction, according to a recent study by the U.S. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002273-00003 Geological Survey. The study wasn't mentioned at the conference. Heartland Institute research fellow Isaac Orr said that hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, which let drillers extract oil and gas from shale, caused oil prices to drop from more than $100 a barrel in 2013 to around $55 today. "Rising oil and gas production in the United States has created 1.7 million jobs in the U.S. And low energy prices have saved consumers millions of dollars. And it's also given us a really good competitive advantage when it comes to manufacturing," Orr said. "The average family has saved about $675 per year in gasoline compared to 2013 prices. That's ginormous. Low natural gas prices have saved anywhere between $181 to $432 per person [on power bills], depending on the geographical area of the country you're living in," Orr said. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002273-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 9/11/2017 4:52:34 PM Hillary says the climate change issue cost her the election Friends, A lot of people even on "our side" of the climate issue think global warming wasn't a major issue in the 2016 election, that polls and focus groups showed voters didn't put a lot of weight on it, that both major parties only played to their base by talking about it. I strongly disagree, and so does Hillary Clinton: h s://www.busincssinsidcr.corn.au/hilla -clinton-bi n-mistakc-20 I 7-9 It's global warming, not health care or taxes or even jobs, that generates the most standing ovations and loudest applause when Trump speaks at his rallies and when Heartland spokespersons give talks around the country. It's a pocketbook issue more than any other, it demonstrates how progressive elites lie and pretend to have knowledge that the average guy doesn't have or can't understand, and it shows in vivid color how those same elites are willing to sell out the working man and the middle class in pursuit of a socialist and (yes) globalist delusion. It gave a million voters who had given up on politics a reason to vote this time. Hillary half-gets it ... she realizes her admission that her green policies would "put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" sunk her campaign, but she seems to think that if only she had phrased it a bit differently, her anti-coal position would not have killed her campaign. I don't think so. The public figured this out despite the media's attempted blockade and censorship of groups like Heartland. If not for the global warming scam, Hillary would not have been campaigning on replacing coal and Trump would not have had coal miners joining him on the stage at many rallies. Global warming truly did kill her campaign in all the key states that Trump had to win. Or so says I. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002274-00001 Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 0000227 4-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 9/9/2017 6:55:51 PM RE: Christine Todd Whitman on consensus, EPA, and Red Team Friends, It appears I accidentally put my "GW Posse" list on the "to" line of the message below, rather than on the blind copy line. Please do not hit reply all. Please delete the list from the "to" line if you choose to forward my message to anyone else. Please delete it from your "inbox." Sorry in advance for the invasion of privacy this may cause. Joe From: WilliamHapper[mailto:happer@Princeton.EDU] Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 1:29 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: RE: Christine Todd Whitman on consensus, EPA, and Red Team From: Joseph Bast L====c..:=====-"-'-===:,J Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 2:24 PM To Subject: Christine Todd Whitman on consensus, EPA, and Red Team SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002275-00001 This makes me want to throw up ... https://www.n timcs.com/2017/09/08/opinion/how-not-to-run-thca.html?action=chck& c=Homc a c&chckSourcc=sto -hcadin°&module=o inion-c-collcft-rcgion®ion=opinion-c-col-left-rcgion&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-rcgiQ!l ~ I've got a long list of policy studies and other publications Heartland needs to release before I leave at the end of the year, I don't have time to reply to this, but one of us should, explicitly rebutting four or five of her points. Amazing she didn't worry about how EPA was being run until Pruitt was appointed ... really, eight years of Obama were all just fine? She's a dinosaur. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 0000227 5-00002 To:____________ i______________________________________________________ Ex._6 .-_Persona_l _Privacy _________________________________________ _L____________________ ~ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002276-00001 1 ! Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy I ! ! ' From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast '·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- I i i · Sat 9/9/2017 6:24:27 PM Christine Todd Whitman on consensus, EPA, and Red Team This makes me want to throw up ... https://www.n timcs.com/2017/09/08/opinion/how-not-to-run-thca.html?action=chck& c=Homc a c&chckSourcc=sto -hcadin°&module=o inion-c-collcft-rcgion®ion=opinion-c-col-left-rcgion&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-rcgiQ!l ~ I've got a long list of policy studies and other publications Heartland needs to release before I leave at the end of the year, I don't have time to reply to this, but one of us should, explicitly rebutting four or five of her points. Amazing she didn't worry about how EPA was being run until Pruitt was appointed ... really, eight years of Obama were all just fine? She's a dinosaur. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002276-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 9/9/2017 5:33:45 PM TheHill.com: Trump stacks administration with climate change skeptics See: h Heartland's Sterling Burnett is quoted at the end of this article ... note the cow-stupid references to "climate science," he really has no idea what the phrase means: Trump's approach to climate change research has emboldened those who have waged years-long campaigns against the scientific consensus. "People who were fighting it for a long time, they saw in Trump, for the first time in a long time, a real ally," said Sterling Burnett, a researcher at the Heartland Institute, a think tank that questions climate science. [sic] The group was an early backer of the "red team, blue team" exercise Pruitt has pitched for climate science. [sic] Burnett said he hopes such a review leads Trump to target other climaterelated activities, including the U.S.'s involvement in international climate treaties and the federal finding that greenhouse gases harm public health and need to be regulated. Trump, he said, focuses on "what he called 'Make America Great Again:' building jobs, energy dominance ... and he recognizes you can't do that if you're doing what Obama did on climate change." Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002277-00001 Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002277 -00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 9/9/2017 5:15:58 PM List of Candidates for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee posted Friends, Steve Milloy alerted me to this ... EPA has announced 43 candidates for its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and is accepting comments on them until September 18: Here is part of the notice: The SAB Staff Office received nominations for the attached 43 candidates based on their expertise and willingness to serve. We hereby invite public comments on the attached List of Candidates under consideration for appointment to the CASAC. Comments should be submitted to Mr. Aaron Y eow, Designated Federal Officer, at yeow .aaron(Ctlepa.govno later than September 18, 2017. E-mail is the preferred mode of receipt. Please be advised that public comments are subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act. The notice of comment period and bias of candidates are here: https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CASAC-2017-List-ofCandidates.pdf Steve Milloy recommends only three candidates, and I heartily concur: Tony Cox Robert F. Phalen Stan Young You may notice they are also among the good guys who applied for positions on the Science Advisory Board. You can read Steve's post about the good and bad nominees here: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002278-00001 https://junkscience.com/2017/09/action-alert-recommendations-for-epas-clean-airscientific-adviso -committee/ Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002278-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 9/9/2017 4:03:36 PM List of Candidates for the EPA Science Advisory Board posted Friends, EPA has posted a list and bias of 132 candidates for EPA Science Advisory Boards here: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf//LookupWebProjectsRequestsforCommentsBOARD/09EI The message sent from EPA to candidates for positions is below. It reads in part, The SAB Staff Office identified 132 candidates based on their expertise and willingness to serve. We hereby invite public comments on the attached List of Candidates under consideration for appointment to the SAB. Comments should be submitted by email to Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer no later than September 28, 2017, at carpenter.thomas@epa.gov. Please be advised that public comments are subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act. I recognize the following names on the list and think they would be good people to serve on the advisory board: Richard Belzer Edwin Berry Alan Carlin Anthony Cox Joseph D'Aleo SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002279-00001 Kevin Dayaranta Paul Dreissen James Enstrom Gordon Fulks John Graham Michael Honeycutt Craig ldso Richard Keen David Legates Anthony Lupo Robert Phalen Anne Smith Richard Smith David Stevenson H. Leighton Steward Donald van der Vaart Stan Young If you take time to read their bias, I think you will agree this is a magnificent list. Please thank them all for applying. There may be others who I don't recognize on the list, but judging by their bias and the results of some Googling, I don't think so. Please consider submitting comments to Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer no later than September 28, 2017, at .QgJ~flli[J!J..Q!!J.gJ~~s!JllQY. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002279-00002 As usual, you should keep your comments brief and as factual as possible. I think something as simple as "Mr. Smith's bio and writings show bias and conflicts of interest likely to mean he opposes Administrator Pruitt's announced intentions to depoliticize and make more transparent the science behind EPA's regulatory actions." Joe --Forwarded message---------From: Carpenter, Thomas Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:10 PM Subject: List of Candidates for the EPA Science Advisory Board posted To: Cc: "Carpenter, Thomas" Email to Candidates for the chartered SAB Dear Colleague, The Invitation for Public Comment on the List of Candidates for the EPA Chartered Science Advisory Board was posted this afternoon. The SAB Staff Office requested "comments to be submitted by email to Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer no later than September 28, 2017, at carpenter.thomas@epa.gov ." The biosketches are available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf//LookupWebProjectsRequestsforCommentsBOARD/09EI Regards Tom Thomas Carpenter SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002279-00003 Designated Federal Officer/ Sr. Biologist US EPA Science Advisory Board, MC 1400R 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 ph2025644885Fax2025652098 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002279-00004 From: Joseph Bast Mon 3/26/2018 8:05:46 PM Tom Harris: "CARBON DIOXIDE IS MOSTLY OXYGEN, PEOPLE: Deceptive Language Ruins Earth Hour," my piece in The Daily Caller Sent: Subject: Very entertaining piece. Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002280-00001 'fl f g+ m, HOME VIDEO • "' % ... I POLITICS US WORLD ENTERTAINMENT SPORTS BUSINESS OPINION SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002280-00002 CARBON DIOXIDE IS MOSTLY OXYGEN, PEOPLE: Deceptive Language Ruins Earth Hour TOMHARRJS Execut,ve Director, Climate Science Coalition With Earth Hour being held around the world between 8:30 and 9:30 pm local time on Saturday, we are going to hear a lot about reducing "carbon pollution," "carbon emissions," and our supposed "carbon footprint." But this makes no sense. Carbon is a solid, naturally occurring, non-toxic element found in all living things. It forms thousands of compounds, much more than any other element. Medicines, trees, oil, and even our bodies are made of carbon compounds. Pure carbon occurs in nature mainly in the forms of graphite and diamond. So, what is the "carbon pollution" environmentalists are concerned about? Are they speaking about soot emissions reduction? Amorphous carbon, carbon without structure, is the main ingredient in soot, which is a pollutant important to control. Power plants have already done a good job reducing soot, as they have with other pollutants. No, activists are crusading against emissions of one specific compound of carbon, namely carbon dioxide (CO2). Ignoring the oxygen atoms and calling CO2 "carbon" makes about as much sense as ignoring the oxygen in water (H2O) and calling it "hydrogen." Calling CO2 "carbon," or worse, "carbon pollution," encourages people to think of it as something dirty and so important to restrict. Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that, regardless of its role in climate change (a point of intense debate among scientists), CO2 is really an invisible gas essential to plant photosynthesis, and so to all life. Climate change campaigners do not seem to understand that commercial greenhouse operators routinely run their internal atmospheres at up to 1,500 parts per million (ppm) CO2 concentration for a good reason. Plants inside grow far more efficiently than at the 400 ppm in the outside atmosphere. Yet there is SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002280-00003 no hint of any consequent temperature rise. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, a report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, cites over 1,000 peer-reviewed studies that document rising productivity of forests and grasslands as CO2 levels have increased, not just in recent decades, but in past centuries. And increasing CO2 levels pose no direct hazard to human health. CO2 concentrations in submarines can reach levels above 10,000 ppm, 25 times current atmospheric levels, with no harmful effects on the crew. Politically correct but deceptive language is dangerous because it dumbs down important science debates and inappropriately influences millions of people, and ultimately, government policy. People educated in the sciences must complain loudly whenever they hear such mistakes. We are actually near the lowest level of CO2 in Earth's history. About 440-million years ago, CO2 was over 1000 percent of today's level while Earth was in one of the coldest periods in the record. This is just one of many findings that indicate that the climate models' assumption that temperature is driven by CO2 is wrong. Activists say that there will be important pollution reduction co-benefits to CO2 emission control. Yet US Environmental Protection Agency data show that total emissions of six major air pollutants dropped 62 percent since 1980 even though CO2 emissions increased by 14 percent. Using climate regulations to reduce pollution would obviously be an expensive mistake. While some commentators promote using as much energy as possible during Earth Hour to demonstrate opposition to the event, a better approach might be to change its name to 'Energy Hour' and encourage citizens to minimize their energy use for an hour to give them a sense of what societies without adequate power are actually like. This could increase public pressure on politicians to ensure that reliable power generation from proven energy sources - coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro - will be available for years to come. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002280-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 3/25/2018 3:41 :31 PM Professor Will Happer: Would Einstein be a global warming skeptic if alive today? "Albert Einstein would almost certainly have been a global warming skeptic if he were alive today. Many distinguished, contemporary scientists are skeptics too." William Happer, Ph.D. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/opinion/20180323/would-einstein-be-global-wanning-skepticif-alive-today/l SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002281-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 3/25/2018 3:22:16 PM HuffPost gets the "climate science tutorial" story wrong ... what's new? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-trial-california_us_5ab53d0ce4b054d118e2a0d9 Heartland and other conservative think tanks "outlived their usefulness to the fossil fuel industry" by 2006, and they dumped us then. So we ramped up our efforts relying almost entirely on non-industry funding. The oil industry will pursue its defense without refuting the left's pseudoscience, except to say "even IPCC admitted lots of uncertainty until as recently as 2013." That strategy is apparently enough to win a legal case but is bad science and bad for the country. We've convinced the president of the United States and nearly all members of his cabinet and all Republican members of Congress that the IPCC is unreliable, that the war on fossil fuels should end, and they are moving as fast as they can to undo the Obama climate legacy. Who's winning now? Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002282-00001 From: Joseph Bast Sun 3/25/2018 12:13:10 AM FW: Wow someone by the name Jaymam counted Myles CO2, N2 and 02 molecules pictures and see what he found Sent: Subject: A detailed and sophisticated critique of the plaintiffs' science presented at the San Francisco "climate science tutorial": Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie htt s://co2islife.word ress.com/2018/03/24/so his -in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-thclic/ Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002283-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Keely Drukala[KDrukala@heartland.org]; Taylor, Brian[Taylor.Brian@epa.gov]; Slotkin, Ron[slotkin.ron@epa.gov] From: John Nothdurft Sent: Wed 11/8/2017 7:58:18 PM Subject: Re: Heartland Video To: Cc: John, Yes, we have the video and it is great! Thank you again. Is it okay for us to post it and promote it publicly as well? Thanks Respectfully, John N othdurft Director of Government Relations The Heartland Institute Sent from my iPhone On Nov 8, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Konkus, John wrote: Did this get straightened out? Thanks. From: Keely Drukala [mailto:KDrukala@heartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 2:28 PM To: Taylor, Brian Cc: John Nothdurft ; Konkus, John ; Slotkin, Ron Subject: Re: Heartland Video Hi Brian, I tried to download the file, but it say Is don't have access. Can you please make sure that I (kdruakla@hcartland.org) has access? I believe I sent a request through the dropbox app. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002284-00001 Thank you, Keely On Nov 7, 2017, at 9:14 AM, Taylor, Brian wrote: Keely, Here's the Dropbox link to Administrator Pruitt's video message: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u3oztciv6xtudbo5qyp9a/2017-1106 VM AdminPruitt Heartlandlnst.mp4?dl=0&oref=e&r=AAgnorrCxChJ0loJ ·vczCFLarDISS0mNErGnAZoF D5D.uF36I62 1sdFlh8FIWT fYm1 RG7PCtk7c35fm n1 kFHf If you have any issue with downloading call me on 202-564-3211. From: Keely Drukala [mailto:KDrukala@heartland.org1 Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 4:25 PM To: John Nothdurft Cc: Konkus, John ; Taylor, Brian ; Slotkin, Ron Subject: Re: Heartland Video John, I can receive the video in whatever way is easiest for you. In the past, we've used Dropbox, email L__ Ex._6 _-_Personal_ Privacy ___ i- Heartland servers don't accept large files) or what ever service is easiest for you. Feel free to call my cell phone if you have any problems 312-282-1390. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002284-00002 Thanks, Keely On Nov 6, 2017, at 3:10 PM, John Nothdurft wrote: John, Thanks again for your help with this! I have copied Keely Drukala, our AV person to let you know how we would like to receive the file. I will follow up and let you know when we plan on showing the video to the audience, etc. Respectfully, John Nothdurft The Heartland Institute Cell: 662-801-2707 From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@e.Qa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 3:05 PM To: John Nothdurft Cc: Taylor, Brian; Slotkin, Ron Subject: Heartland Video SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002284-00003 John: Brian and Ron with EPA's office of multimedia will have the edited video ready, likely tomorrow morning. Please let them know how you would like them to send you the file. Thank you! John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Mobile: I Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ i SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002284-00004 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] John Nothdurft Wed 11/8/2017 7:45:36 PM Automatic reply: Heartland Video I will be out of the office until Monday, November 10, 2017. I will be checking emails, but it may take me longer than normal to respond. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002285-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 11/6/2017 9:25:06 PM Pruitt records Video for our energy conference, and more Friends, Heartland staff are about to head for Houston for three conferences in two days. See some good news below from John Nothdurft, our government relations director, regarding our ____ _ ==>.,L.....:==== 250 people signed up, and more planning to show up at the door... Not bad for Heartland's first energy conference, and the first conference ever on President Trump's energy plan. Joe From: John Nothdurft Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 3:13 PM To: Tim Huelskamp; Joseph Bast; Jim Lakely Cc: Keely Drukala; Nikki Comerford Subject: Videos for AFEC All, I just got off the phone with EPA. Administrator Pruitt just finished recording a video for us to use at AFEC. They said he was really fired up in the video and was happy to do it. We should be receiving it tomorrow morning sometime. I have also been told we will be getting videos from Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Jim Inhofe, and Chairman Lamar Smith. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002288-00001 Respectfully, John N othdurft The Heartland Institute Director of Government Relations Ph: 312-377-4000 Cell: 662-801-2707 http://www.hcartland.org Follow me on Twitter SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002288-00002 Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Taylor, Brian[Taylor.Brian@epa.gov]; Slotkin, Ron[slotkin.ron@epa.gov]; Keely Dru kala[KDru kala@heartland.org] From: John Nothdurft Sent: Mon 11/6/2017 9:10:39 PM Subject: RE: Heartland Video To: Cc: John, Thanks again for your help with this! I have copied Keely Drukala, our AV person to let you know how we would like to receive the file. I will follow up and let you know when we plan on showing the video to the audience, etc. Respectfully, John Nothdurft The Heartland Institute Cell: 662-801-2707 From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 3:05 PM To: John Nothdurft Cc: Taylor, Brian; Slotkin, Ron Subject: Heartland Video John: Brian and Ron with EPA's office of multimedia will have the edited video ready, likely tomorrow morning. Please let them know how you would like them to send you the file. Thank you! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002290-00001 John Konkus Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs . ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1 Mobile: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy! i (_________________________________________________________ i ! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002290-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 11/5/2017 6:52:37 PM Tom Harris and Tim Ball at Daily Caller: "An Avalanche Of Global Warming Alarmism Is About To Hit" h ://dail caller.com/20 I 7/ I I/03/an-avalanchc-of- 0 loba1-wannin -alannism-is-about-to-hit/ An Avalanche Of Global Warming Alarmism Is About To Hit TOM HARRIS AND TIM BALL With the United Nations Climate Change Conference starting on Monday in Bonn, Germany, we need to brace ourselves for an avalanche of global warming alarmism. We'll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels. An important data set used by the computer models cited by the IPCC is the 'HadCRUT 4' global average temperature history for the past 167 years produced by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the Hadley Centre, both based in the United Kingdom. Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data was collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth's oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers. The data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/0 .5 degrees Celsius, often times no better than +/-1 degree. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful. Modern weather station surface temperature data is now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT 4. This was done initially because governments believed that satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection. But the satellites did not show the warming forecast by computer models. So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002291-00001 sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes. Today, there is virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth's surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960. So, the HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the problems with the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above the surface, the conclusion is unavoidable: it is not possible to know how the Earth's climate has varied over the past century and a half The data is therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC's conclusions. In fact, there is insufficient data of any kind-temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, etc.-to be able to determine how today's climate differs from the past. So, the IPCC's climate forecasts have no connection with the real world. This will not stop Bainimarama and other conference leaders from citing the IPCC in support of their warnings of future climate catastrophe. No one should take them seriously. Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) P.O. Box 23013 Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2 Canada www.climatescicnccintcmational.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002291-00002 613- 728-9200 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002291-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 11/5/2017 2:39:41 PM Junkscience.com posts my comments about the Climate Science Special Report My comments below are also available online at: https://junkscience.com/2017 /11/joe-bast-scientific-critique-of-usgcrps-2017-climatescience-special-report/ Nice ad on this site for the NRDC. Hmm. Sleeping with the enemy, Steve? Joe From: Joseph Bast Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:47 PM Subject: Climate Science Special Report released The Climate Science Special Report, "volume one of the Fourth National Climate Assessment," was released a few minutes ago. The entire report can be found here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov But in August the Trump administration disbanded the interagency committee that was working on the report: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ energy-environment/wp/2017 /08/20/the-trumpadministration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climatechange/?utm _term=.5c0daalfba4 l Not sure why it was nevertheless released ... probably the deep state at work. Here were my reactions to this report, from my earlier review of the draft back in August. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002292-00001 Scientific Critique of USGCRP's 2017 Climate Science Special Report The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a joint program of 13 U.S. national government agencies charged with developing a program to "understand, assess, predict, and respond to" global climate change. It produces reports to Congress every four years titled "National Climate Assessment." The three reports released to date have all exaggerated the amount of global warming, the human role in that warming, the negative impacts of the same, and the certainty of the science surrounding the causes and consequences of climate change. For example, a team of climate scientists led by Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute said of the Third National Climate Assessment: "This National Assessment is much closer to pseudoscience than it is to science. It is as explanatory as Sigmund Freud. It clearly believes that virtually everything in our society is tremendously dependent the surface temperature, and, because of that, we are headed towards certain and inescapable destruction, unless we take its advice and decarbonize our economy, pronto. Unfortunately, the Assessment can't quite tell us how to accomplish that, because no one knows how." h s://ob·ect.cato.or The latest (June 28) draft of the Fourth National Climate Assessment is similarly flawed. This brief critique makes ten points which track the content and organization of the assessment: 1. The report is a legacy product of a political regime that captured and "weaponized" this government agency to advance its agenda, much as it did to the IRS, Justice Department, and other departments. The report was written by hold-overs from the Obama administration, and represents only the very biased and politicized perspective of a small clique of government scientists on a complex issue. 2. The report fails to provide an objective and comprehensive review of the available literature. Contrary to media reports, the report was not made available to respected climate scientists for peer reviewed. Several scientists report that their requests for drafts were rejected. [Soon and Happer, others?] The final draft shows no evidence of being informed by the efforts of critics of the Obama administration's legislative agenda or even a single reference to the multiple reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Nf PCC). 3. The report relies on past reports by the United Nation's Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the Trump administration properly rejects. The report refers to the IPCC's 2013 report as "rigorously-reviewed international assessments," when in fact the IPCC is controversial, scandal-ridden, and its procedures fall far short of the requirements of the Data Quality Act. [Why Scie77tistsDisagree, pp. 38-44] 4. The report's most frequently quoted conclusion, "that it is extremely likely that human SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002292-00002 influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20 th century," is only a restatement of the opinions of activists and advocates in the field of global warming, and not a statement about the underlying science, which remains incomplete and uncertain. This is the same flawed reasoning and semantic games as used by the IPCC to make the same statement. It is not a statement of scientific fact, but rather of "some experts' opinions" without any basis in probability analysis or scientific forecasting. [InterAcademy Council Audit, p. 6lfil 5. The report denies the existence of the "pause" in global warming during the past 18 years or longer, something even the IPCC admits. It cites manipulated and unreliable databases when superior databases are readily available, apparently in an effort to once again "hide the decline." 6. The report ignores at least 27 peer-reviewed articles saying climate sensitivity is lower than the amount assumed by IPCCC and EPA. Climate sensitivity is the amount of temperature change likely to result from a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from preindustrial times. If the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than we thought four years ago, this report ought to reflect that fact. [Cited in Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs 2015; reproduced in Why Scie77listsDisag ee pp 66-69] 7. The report denies extensive evidence that weather is not becoming more extreme over time and physical evidence explaining why it will be less extreme in a warmer world. It recites Al Gore's litany of extreme weather predictions even though IPCC and independent scholars have thoroughly debunked it. [Chapter 7 of CCR-rr: Physical Science] 8. The report repeats false claims about the loss of arctic sea ice - falsifying trends and causes and making false forecasts - in order to support its narrative of catastrophic man-made global warming. Artie sea ice is not at historic low levels, it varies naturally due to known and unknown external forcings and internal variability, and it is not evidence of a human impact on climate. [Chapter 5 of CCR fl: Physical Science] 9. The report misrepresents scenarios and computer-based simulations of future climate conditions as scientific forecasts of future climate conditions, when in fact it is well known among scientists that future climates cannot be predicted. Prof Scott Armstrong, the world's leading authority on scientific forecasting, and coauthors have shown conclusively that the predictions made by the IPCC, EPA, and other government agencies are merely the opinions of some experts, not scientific forecasts, and cannot provide a reliable basis for public policy. 10. The report misrepresents sea-level rise and changes in ocean pH levels, portraying both as dire catastrophes resulting from man-made global warming, when in fact there is considerable evidence that sea level has not accelerated from its historic rates and considerable evidence that higher pH levels have positive as well as adverse effects on ocean life. [Chapter 6 of CCR-H: Physical Science] Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002292-00003 The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@ hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002292-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 11/3/2017 7:47:58 PM WSJ: Koonin, "A deceptive new report on climate" Steven Koon in calls out a couple of the more flagrant exaggerations in the Climate Science Special Report in today's Wall Street Journal. Joe https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882 A Deceptive New Report on Climate True, the U.S. has had more heat waves in recent years-but no more than a century ago. By Steven E. Koonin Nov. 2, 2017 6:14p.m. ET The world's response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government's Climate Science Special Report, to be released Friday, does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments. A team of some 30 authors chartered by the U.S. Global Change Research Program began work in spring 2016 on the report, "designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change." An early draft was released for public comment in January and reviewed by the National Academies this spring. I, together with thousands of other scientists, had the opportunity to scrutinize and discuss the final draft when it was publicized in August by the --"'--==-c....-"---'--"'=. While much is right in the report, it is misleading in more than a few important places. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002293-00001 One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission. This isn't the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report's executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-l 960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. Yet buried deep in the report is a figure showing that heat waves are no more frequent today than in 1900. This artifice also appeared in the government's 2014 National Climate Assessment, which emphasized a post-1980 increase in hurricane power without discussing the longer-term record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently stated that it has been unable to detect any human impact on hurricanes. Such data misrepresentations violate basic scientific norms. In his celebrated 1974 "Cargo Cult" ===-=-, the late Richard Feynman admonished scientists to discuss objectively all the relevant evidence, even that which does not support the narrative. That's the difference between science and advocacy. These deficiencies in the new climate report are typical of many others that set the report's tone. Consider the different perception that results from "sea level is rising no more rapidly than it did in 1940" instead of "sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades," or from "heat waves are no more common now than they were in 1900" versus "heat waves have become more frequent since 1960." Both statements in each pair are true, but each alone fails to tell the full story. Several actions are warranted. First, the report should be amended to describe the history of sealevel rise, heat waves and other trends fully and accurately. Second, the government should convene a "Red/Blue" adversarial review to stress-test the entire report, as I in April. Critics argue such an exercise would be superfluous given the conventional review processes, and others have questioned even the minimal time and expense that would be involved. But the report's deficiencies demonstrate why such a review is necessary. Finally, the institutions involved in the report should figure out how and why such shortcomings survived multiple rounds ofreview. How, for example, did the National Academies' review committee conclude that the chapter on sea level rise "accurately reflects the current scientific literature on this topic"? The Academies building prominently displays Einstein's dictum "one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." Mr. Koonin was undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama 's first term and is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. Appeared in the November 3, 2017, print edition as 'A Deceptive New Report On Climate.' SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002293-00002 Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002293-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 11/3/2017 6:46:31 PM Climate Science Special Report released The Climate Science Special Report, "volume one of the Fourth National Climate Assessment," was released a few minutes ago. The entire report can be found here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov But in August the Trump administration disbanded the interagency committee that was working on the report: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ energy-environment/wp/2017 /08/20/the-trumpadministration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climatechange/?utm _term=.5c0daalfba4 l Not sure why it was nevertheless released ... probably the deep state at work. Here were my reactions to this report, from my earlier review of the draft back in August. Scientific Critique of USGCRP's 2017 Climate Science Special Report The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a joint program of 13 U.S. national government agencies charged with developing a program to "understand, assess, predict, and respond to" global climate change. It produces reports to Congress every four years titled "National Climate Assessment." The three reports released to date have all exaggerated the amount of global warming, the human role in that warming, the negative impacts of the same, and the certainty of the science surrounding the causes and consequences of climate change. For example, a team of climate scientists led by Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute said of the Third National Climate Assessment: This National Assessment is much closer to pseudoscience than it is to science. It is as explanatory as Sigmund Freud. It clearly believes that virtually everything in our society is tremendously dependent the surface temperature, and, because of that, we are headed towards certain and inescapable destruction, unless we take its advice and decarbonize our economy, pronto. Unfortunately, the Assessment can't quite tell us how to accomplish that, because no one knows how. h s://ob·ect.cato.or SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002294-00001 The latest (June 28) draft of the Fourth National Climate Assessment is similarly flawed. This brief critique makes ten points which track the content and organization of the assessment: 1. The report is a legacy product of a political regime that captured and "weaponized" this government agency to advance its agenda, much as it did to the IRS, Justice Department, and other departments. The report was written by hold-overs from the Obama administration, and represents only the very biased and politicized perspective of a small clique of government scientists on a complex issue. 2. The report fails to provide an objective and comprehensive review of the available literature. Contrary to media reports, the report was not made available to respected climate scientists for peer reviewed. Several scientists report that their requests for drafts were rejected. [Soon and Happer, others?] The final draft shows no evidence of being informed by the efforts of critics of the Obama administration's legislative agenda or even a single reference to the multiple reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Nf PCC). 3. The report relies on past reports by the United Nation's Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the Trump administration properly rejects. The report refers to the IPCC's 2013 report as "rigorously-reviewed international assessments," when in fact the IPCC is controversial, scandal-ridden, and its procedures fall far short of the requirements of the Data Quality Act. [Why Scie77tists Disagree, pp. 38-44] 4. The report's most frequently quoted conclusion, "that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20 th century," is only a restatement of the opinions of activists and advocates in the field of global warming, and not a statement about the underlying science, which remains incomplete and uncertain. This is the same flawed reasoning and semantic games as used by the IPCC to make the same statement. It is not a statement of scientific fact, but rather of "some experts' opinions" without any basis in probability analysis or scientific forecasting. [InterAcademy Council Audit, p. 6lfil 5. The report denies the existence of the "pause" in global warming during the past 18 years or longer, something even the IPCC admits. It cites manipulated and unreliable databases when superior databases are readily available, apparently in an effort to once again "hide the decline." 6. The report ignores at least 27 peer-reviewed articles saying climate sensitivity is lower than the amount assumed by IPCCC and EPA. Climate sensitivity is the amount of temperature change likely to result from a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from preindustrial times. If the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than we thought four years ago, this report ought to reflect that fact. [Cited in Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs 2015; reproduced in WhyScie77lists Disag ee pp 66-69] 7. The report denies extensive evidence that weather is not becoming more extreme over time and physical evidence explaining why it will be less extreme in a warmer world. It recites Al Gore's litany of extreme weather predictions even though IPCC and independent scholars have thoroughly debunked it. [Chapter 7 of CCR-ff: Physical Science] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002294-00002 8. The report repeats false claims about the loss of arctic sea ice - falsifying trends and causes and making false forecasts - in order to support its narrative of catastrophic man-made global warming. Artie sea ice is not at historic low levels, it varies naturally due to known and unknown external forcings and internal variability, and it is not evidence of a human impact on climate. [Chapter 5 of CCR fl: Physical Science] 9. The report misrepresents scenarios and computer-based simulations of future climate conditions as scientific forecasts of future climate conditions, when in fact it is well known among scientists that future climates cannot be predicted. Prof Scott Armstrong, the world's leading authority on scientific forecasting, and coauthors have shown conclusively that the predictions made by the IPCC, EPA, and other government agencies are merely the opinions of some experts, not scientific forecasts, and cannot provide a reliable basis for public policy. 10. The report misrepresents sea-level rise and changes in ocean pH levels, portraying both as dire catastrophes resulting from man-made global warming, when in fact there is considerable evidence that sea level has not accelerated from its historic rates and considerable evidence that higher pH levels have positive as well as adverse effects on ocean life. [Chapter 6 of CCR-H: Physical Science] Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002294-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Thur 11/2/2017 4:41:40 PM FW: EPA Announces Public Hearing on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan John, I'm very excited to learn of this news. Is there a way some of Heartland's experts - all huge supporters of repealing the CPP - can pre-register before the online registration link goes live? We'd hate to be swamped by alarmists who will be spamming that link. Also: I love that this hearing is in the heart of coal country. Nice touch. Gina McCarthy would hold this in Berkeley. Cheers! Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Dewey, Amy [mailto:Dewey.Amy@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11 :32 AM Subject: EPA Announces Public Hearing on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002295-00001 CONTACT: press@epa.gov EPA Announces Public Hearing on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan Hearing will be held November 28-29 in Charleston, WV WASHINGTON (November 2, 2017)- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold a public hearing on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan in Charleston, WV on November 28-29, 2017. All persons wanting to speak are encouraged to register in advance. "The EPA is headed to the heart of coal country to hear from those most impacted by the CPP and get their comments on the proposed Repeal Rule. The agency looks forward to hearing from all interested stakeholders," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. What: Public hearing on proposed repeal of the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (commonly known as the Clean Power Plan). When: November 28-29, 2017. The hearing will convene each day 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. If the EPA receives a high volume of requests, we may continue the public hearing to November 30, 2017. The EPA may also hold an additional hearing to be announced at a later date. See the website for updates about the hearing. Pre-registration to provide an oral presentation will begin when the notice is published in the Federal Register and close on November 16, 2017. People will be contacted about speaking slots via email starting on November 17, 2017. Oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing will be considered with the same weight as written statements and supporting information submitted during the public comment period. Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment period, which has been extended to January 16, 2018. Comments should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355 and may be submitted by one of the methods listed on the Clean Power Plan Proposed Repeal: How to Comment web page. Background: Soon after the previous Administration issued the Clean Power Plan in 2015, 150 entities including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 rural electric co-ops, and three labor unions challenged the CPP, highlighting a range of legal and technical concerns. A few months later, the United States Supreme Court stayed the CPP, immediately halting implementation-the first time the Supreme Court had ever issued a stay to block the enforcement of a regulation. On March 28, 2017, Administrator Pruitt signed a notice indicating the EPA's intent to review the Clean Power Plan, in accord with the President's Energy Independence Executive Order. On October 16, the EPA proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan, proposing that it is not consistent SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002295-00002 with the Clean Air Act. EPA is now taking comment on that proposal and has extended the public comment period to January 16, 2018. More information about the public hearing, and the proposed rulemaking can be found online. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002295-00003 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Joseph Bast Fri 12/15/2017 3:24:12 PM Utterly pathetic: "10 scalable solutions for carbon neutrality and climate sustainability" Bending the Curve F6 low-res.pdf Sent: Subject: Friends, It's hard to beat this report from the University of California for its recital ofliberal cant on the climate change issue and wishful thinking about mankind's ability to change the weather. But maybe some folks can try their hand at writing pithy and hurtful critiques? It stands as Exhibit I in the role universities play in the global warming movement. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/3 77-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002296-00001 computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002296-00002 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ten scalable solutions for carbon neutrality and climate stability SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297-00001 150/ 001/3740 002 010000 217 002 EPA-HQ cv-18 .51 @2000. . ?e?m/?gf MW 1/ 0x . 26/40 .2. x, ?05/00 E10 Fay; J- 30/2 TV. . .4:L423 i i i, W/v?lf/?w/z/WV/ 2?4 gag/.Zigii?fk/I?JZ 623%; (in y?g} Myd/ A ,2??an {?ax/m EX XX Xf/in/gXX/ Offij?vf/ UNlVEPSITY OF Ct,L!FOF!N/A Bending the Curve: Executive Summary TABLE PART OF CONTENTS rwo FOREWORD 2 I. Seizing the Moment 3 11. We Are at a Crossroads 4 Ill. Bending the Curve 5 IV. The california Experience: 1960 to 2015 6 V. The UC carbon Neutrality Initiative 7 THE SOLUTIONS 8 I. 10 ScalableSolutions 10 11. Unique Aspects of the 10 Solutions 13 Ill. Pathways for Implementing the 10 Solutions 14 THE URGENCY, THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS, 23 AND THE NEED FOR SCALABLE SOLUTIONS I. How Did We Get Here? 24 11. carbon Dioxide Is Not the Only Problem 25 111.Planetary-Scalewarming: How Large and How Soon? 26 IV. Facing the Worst Scenario: the Fat Tail 27 V. From Climate Change to Climate Disruption: AmplifyingFeedbacks 28 VI. The Human Dimension: Public Health and Food and Water Security 31 VII. Environmental Equity,Ethics andJJstice: What Is Our ~sponsibility? 33 Citations 34 Authors 37 ResearchFoci 38 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00005 522 2 2 3 2; 29;? 45552 22: 222,226 22 >2 ?gsf ?22:2 Se .2 ?32?ng 2 2 :3 {22 2222? 2/ 252/322?? 2 2/2 3 ,262/ 3?2 23 5:2 2 22?" 1,42 an?: 9 2" g< 24'? r2 2/2" 74 iff- 222:2 .2 ?32. ,4 1:2? 24%? ??aw/?239% 22/2222% 3222 ?29231}? 2 22:2? 2 2 22 2% 222/129}: 22222; 22 a 2 22 Egg/5,2 '29} FOPEWORD I. Seizing the Moment Climate change is scientifically incontrovertible. What the world urgently needs now are scalable solutions for bending the curve-flattening:he upward trajectory of human-causedgreenhousegasemissionsand consequent global climate change. This executive summary of the full report, Bendingthe Curve:10 scalablesolutionsfor carbonneutrality and climate stability, presents pragmatic paths for achieving carbon neutrality and climate stability in california, the United Statesand the world. More than 50 researchersand scholars-from a wide range of disciplines across the University of californiasy,,tem-formed a climate solutions group and came together in recent months to identify thesesolutions, many of which emerge from UC researchas well as the researchof colleaguesaround the world. Takentogether, thesesolutions can bend the curve of climate change.The full report will be published in spring 2016 after peer review. This report is inspired by California's recent pledge to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and by the UniversityofGalifornia's pledge to become carbon neutral by 2025. What is takingplacein California todayis exactly the sort of large-scaledemonstration projectthe planetneeds.And this statewide demonstration projectis composedof many of the kinds of solutions that can be scaled up around the world. Over the pasthalf century,Galifornia has provideda remarkableexamplefor the world by ochieving dramatic reductions in air IX)llution, while continuingto grow economically. In this report,we proposea set of strategiesfor combating climatechangeand growing the economy in Galifornia,the nation and the world,while buildingpresent-dayand intergenerational wealth,and improvingthe well-beingof peopleand the planet. The Universityof Galiforniahas playeda keyrole in Galifornia'spioneeringleadership in energy and environmental policythroughresearch,teachingand publicservice, and currentlyis partneringwith local,state,federal and international leaders in the public,privateand philanthropicsectors to address our pressingclimate change challenges. We still have much more to do here in Galifornia. We are eager to share these lessonswith the world at the upcomingglobalclimate summit in Paris,and togetherbuild a better,safer,healthier and more equitableworld,while bendingthe curve of climate change. As we make the changesnecessaryto achieve carbon neutralityat the Universityof california,employingsolutions that can be scaled up to developing energy and climate solutions for the world,hundredsof thousandsof foculty,students and staffacrossour 10 campusesand three affiliatedational laboratorieswill be learningand sharingwith the world how we can bend the curve of greenhousegasemissionsand stopglobal warmingthroughtakingbold yet pragmaticstepsand loweringthe barriers so others can follow. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 3 ED_001389A_00002297-00007 II. We Are at a Crossroadsand We Must Make a Choice Ii t IS r I • it is • • This is evident in the increased frequencyand intensityof storm,, hurricanes,floods,heatwaves, droughtsand forest fi resThese extreme events,as well as the spreadof certain infectious diseases, worsened air pollution,drinking water contamination and food shortages, are creatingthe beginning of what soon will be a globalpublic health crisis.A whole new navigable ocean is openingin the Arctic. Sea levels are rising,causingrrajor darragein the world's most populous cities. All this has resulted from warmingthe planetby onlyabout 0.9 degreesCelsius,prirrarilyfrom human activities. Since 1750, we have emitted 2 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO) and other greenhouse gases.The emission in 4 UNIVERSITY 2011 was around 50 billion tons and is growingat a rate of 2.2 percent per year. If this rate of increase continues unabated,the world is on target to warm by about 2 degrees Celsiusin lessthan 40 years.By the end of the century, warming could range from 2.5 degrees Celsius to a catastrophic 7.8degrees Celsius. We are transitioning from climate change to climate disruption. With such alarming possibilities the planetis highlylikelyto cross several tippingpointswithin decades,triggeringchangesthat could last thousandsof years.All of this is occurring againsta bockdrop of growingneedsand pressuresby hurrans,as our populationis set to increasebyat least 2 billion people by 2050. OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00008 111.Bending the Curve Avoided Global Warming by 2050 (Climate and CleanAir Coalition,United Nations EnvironmentProgramme) BC+CH 4 0.5°C HFCs 0.1°C - BAU reference (BusinessAs Usual) •- CO2 only BC+CH• only ,._ Full Mitigation CO2+SLCPs (BC+CH• +HFCs) 0.6°C Simulated temperature change under various mitigation scenarios "Bendingthe curve" refersto flattening:heupwardtrajectory of human-causedwarmingtrends. ~duci ngCO2 emissionsby 80 percentby2050 and movingto carbon neutralitypost-2050would begin to bend the temperature curve downwardand reduce overallwarming by as muchas 1.5 degreesCelsiusby2100.1 More rapid reductions can be achieved by reducingfour short-livedclimate pollutants. Theseshort-livedclimate pollutants,knownasS...CPs, are methane(CH4 ), blackcarbon, hydrofluorocarbom(HFCs, which are used in refrigerants) and tropospheric ozone.If currently available technologiesfor reducingSLCPs were fully implementedby 2030, projectedwarming could be reduced by as muchas 0.6 degreesCelsius within two to four decades,keeping the mid-century warmingwell below 2 degreesCelsiusrelative to the pre-industrial average.This could give the world additional time to achieve net-zeroemissionsor even negative carbon emissions through scaling Temperature estimates for future warming trends as well as for the mitigated warming given throughout this report havea 95 percent probability range of ±50 percent. For example, a value of 2 degreesCelsius in the report is the central value with a 95 percent range of 1 to 4 degreesCelsius. That is, there is a 95 percent probability the true value will be within that range. up existingand emergingcarbonneutral and carbonsequestration technologies andmethods.Achieving both maximumpossible mitigationof SLCPsandcarbonneutralitybeyond 2050 could hold globalwarmingto about 2 degreesCelsiusthrough 2100, which would avert most disastrousclimatedisruptions. Thisis our goalin this report. In this executivesummaryof the full Bending the Curve report, we describe10 procticalsolutions to mitigate climate change that are scalableto the state, the nation and the world. Thereare manysuch reportsofferingrecommendations and solutions to keepclimatechange under manageable levels.We take full accountof suchaction-oriented reportsand offersomeunique solutions to complementthem. Many of the solutions proposed here are beingfieldtestedon Universityof Galiforniacampusesand elsewhere in Galifornia.The background, the criteria,the quantitati\€narrative andjustificatiortorthesesolutions can be found in the full report. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 5 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00009 IV. The California Experience: 1960 to 2015 In the economic boom following World War 11- fueled by large increasesin population, vehicles, diesel trucks and coal-burning industries-Galifornia recorded generatedfrom renewables(not includinghydropower), second onlyto Germany(whichgenerates 27 percentof its electricityfrom renewables). These impressive some of the highest air pollution environmental gains did not hurt levels, competing with the city of London for the dubious title of the worst polluted region in the world. Since then, California has made a remarkable turnaround. From 1960 to the present,Galifornia has Galifornia'seoonomy,which grew at an impressivepacewith the highest reduced levels of particles and gases related to air pollution by as much as 90 percent. gross domestic product of all states in the nation, constituting the world's eighth largest economy.California hasshown how to reducefossiI fuel related pollutionemissionswhile sustaining strongeconomicgrowth. The concentration of black carbon was reduced by 90 percent across Galifornia. In the meantime, fuel Emboldenedby this favorable experiencein regulating air pollution, California in 2002 passedthe first law in the countrythat targeted consumption for the transportation greenhouse gas emissions from sector increasedby a factor of five and populationgrew from 15.5 million (1959) to 39 million (2014). Galifornia also has made impressive gainsin energy efficienqmd in loweringits carbon footprint.Its per capitaenergy consumptionis among the lowest in the United States (48th) and its per capita electricityconsumptionis the lowest- roughlyhalf of the U.S. per capitaconsumption. vehicles. In 2006, it enacted the precedent-setting Globalwarming Solutions act and gave authority to Galifornia'sairIX)llutionagency, the GaliforniaAir ResourcesBoard (CAm), to enact policiesto reduce its greenhouse gasemissionsto 1990 levelsby2020.The state responded with a suite of measuresthat include a cap and trade program, a low carbon fuel standard for vehicles, Galiforniais one of the most energyefficiellllnd greenesteconomiesin the world. It is the second-to-least carbon-intense economyin the world next to France,which relies heavily on nuclearpower. It also is a leader in renewable power generation with 23 percentof its electricity 6 UNIVERSITY automobile emission standards expectedto reduceemissionsby 30 percentby2016, renewableportfolio standards for utilities,energy efficienc~rogram, for buildings and appliances, and transit and land use programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled.This hasbeenfollowed by another milestone in 2015 when Gov.Brown issuedan executive order settinga goalof reducing CO2 emissionsto 40 percentbelow 1990 levelsby2030,which is the pathway requiredfor stabilizing climate below 2 degreesCelsius relative to the pre-industrialaverage.The legacy of Galifornia'sair qualityand energy efficienc~rogramssineethe 1960s and the depth of expertiseat CARS on the multi-dimensional aspects of climate change mitigation have placedGaliforniain a uniqueIX)Sition to embark on such ambitious low carbon pathways. While its geography,equable climate and commerce have favored green growth,this progresscame as a result of fiva:lecadesof consistent and innovative policies that relied on sound research, innovative development and aggressiveimplementation of IX)licies. While Galiforniareliedonly on command and control regulation until the 1990s, the state began rollingout market incentives for oontrolling nitrous oxide emissions and demonstrated the efficacy,f market instruments to mitigate certain typesof emissions.Rslying on this experience,CARSlaunched a cap and trade system in 2013 to reduce carbon emissions from utilities, industrialfacilities and fuel distributors,covering85 percentof Galifornia'semissions,making it the most comprehensive cap and trade market in the world. OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002297-00010 V. The Carbon Neutrality Initiative of the University Of California Galifornia cannot address climate change on its own, but the state can serve as a living laboratory for "the art of the possible," sharing its good practices and cooperating with other states and nations to mitigatetheir emissions. To achieve this goal,California has created an "Under 2 MOU,"an agreement Gov. Brown co-founded with the state of Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany.The "Under 2 MOU" is an agreement among subnational jurisdictions around the world to limit the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. Since the global agreerrent was firstsigned in May2015, a total of 45 jurisdictions in 20 countries and fiva;ontinents,with a total GDP of US$14 trillion,have signed or endorsed the agreerrent. This report is an outgrowthof the Universityof Galifornia President's Carbon NeutralityInitiative. The authors of th is report and our colleaguesat the Universityof California's 10 campuses and three affiliatedational laboratories are stronglymotivated by the special demands of this ambitious goal, and we are also motivated by corresponding goals for the state of California,the nation and the world. The UC Carbon Neutrality Initiative is dedicated to achieving net-zerogreenhousegas emissions by 2025 across al I 10 UC campuses. It should be emphasizedthat a netzero emission target is enormously demandingand requirescareful strategic planning to arrive at a mix of technologies, behavioral measures and policies,as well as highlyeffectiva;ommunicationall of which,taken together,are far more challengingthan simply reducingemissions by some 40 percent or even 80 percent. Each campus has a unique set of requirements based on its current energy consumption and emissions. Factors such as a local climate, reliance on cogeneration facilities, access to wholesale electricity markets and whether the campus has a hospitaland medical school, shapethe specificchallenges of the campuses, each of which is a "livinglaboratory"for learningand Examples of current projectsrelated to the carbon NeutralityInitiative are described in the full report.These include an 80 rregawattsolar array in the Central Valley (the largest at any U.S.university), an experirrental anaerobic digester that is using food waste to producebio-rrethane,a largefuel cell that generates2.8 rregawattsof electricityfrom a municipal waste water treatment focility,smart lightingand smart buildingsystemsthat dramatically reduce energy consumption and a solargreenhouse that selectively harvests lightfor solarelectricity. These and other works at the Universityof Galifornia illustrate the commitment that we have made to mitigateclimate change. adapting. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 7 ED_001389A_00002297-00011 p R T ES L Tl s SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297-00012 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 I. 10 Scalable Solutions These 10 pragmatic,scalablesolutions-all of which can be implementedimmediatelyand expandedrapidly-will clean our air and keepglobalwarmingunder 2 degreesCelsius and,at the same time, providebreathingroom for the world to fully transition to carbon neutralityin the comingdecades.More detail on each solution can be found in Section Ill. 1 3 5 Bend the warming curve imrrediately by reducing short-lived climate pollutants (S...CPs) and sustainably by replacingcurrent fossil-fueled energy systemswith carbon neutral technologies. Achieve the SLCP Deepen the global culture of climate collaboration by designingvenues where stakeholders, communityand religiousleaders converge around concrete problemswith researchers Adopt market-based instruments to create efficienilncentives for and scholars from all academic reduction targets prescribed in solution #9 by2030 to cut projectedwarming disciplines, with the overall goalof initiating collaborative actions to and should employmechanismsto contain costs.Adoptthe highquality emissions inventories,monitoring byapproximately 50 peroontby2050. To limit long-termglobalwarmingto under 2 degreesCelsius,cumulative emissionsfrom now to 2050 must be lessthan 1 trillion tons and approach zero emissions post-2050.Solutions #7 to#9 cover technological solutions to accomplish these targets. mitigateclimate disruption. and enforcement mechanisms 2 Foster a global culture of climate action through coordinated public communication and education at local to globalscales.Combine technology and p:::ilicy solutions with innovative approaches to changing social attitudes and behavior. 4 Scale up subnational models of governance and collaboration around the world to embolden and energizenational and international action. Use the California examplesto helpother state- and city-leveljurisdictionsbecome livinglaboratories for renewable technologiesand for regulatoryas well as market-based solutions, and build cross-sector collaborations among urbanstakeholdersbecause creatingsustainable cities is a key to globalchange. businesses and individuals to reduce CO2 emissions.These can include cap and trade or carbon pricing necessaryto make theseapproaches work. In settingswhere these institutions do not crediblyexist, alternative approachessuch as direct regulationmay be the better approach- althoughoften at higher cost than market-basedsystems. 6 Narrowlytargetdirect regulatory measures - such as rebates and efficienqmd renewable energy portfolio standards - at high emissions sectors not covered by market-based policies. Create p:::iwerful incentivesthat continually reward improvementsto bring down emissions while building political coalitions in favor of climate policy.Terminatesubsidies that encourageemission-intensive activities. Expandsubsidies that encourage innovation in low emission technologies. 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002297-00014 7 Of the 10 solutions proposed here, seven 9 Promote immediate widespread Immediately make maximum use use of mature technologies of available technologies such as photovoltaics, wind turbines,battery and hydrogenfuel cell electric lightduty vehicles,and more efficient end-use devices,especiallyin lighting,air conditioning, appliances and industrial processes. These technologies will have even greater impact if they are the target of market-based or direct regulatory solutions such as those described in solutions#5 and#6, and have the potential to achieve 30 percent to 40 percent reduction in fossil fuel CO2 emissions by 2030. Aggressively supportand promote to accelerate the completeelectrificatiorof energy and transportationsystems and improvebuildingefficiency. Supportdeveloprnmtof lower-cost energy storagefor applications in transportation, resilient largescale and distributed micro-scale grids,and residential uses. Support developmentof new energy storage technologies,includingbatteries, super-capacitors, compressed air, hydrogen and thermal storage,as wel I as advances in heat pumps, efficient lighting,fuel cells,smart buildings and systemsintegration. Theseinnovative technologies biomass fuels and burning them indoors for cooking. 10 8 innovations combined with regulations to reduce methane emissions by 50 percentand black carbon emissions by 90 percent. Phaseout hydrofluorocarbonS:HFCs) by 2030 by amendingthe Montreal Protocol. In addition to the climate and health benefitsdescribed under solution #1, this solution will provideaccessto clean cookingfor the poorest3 billion peoplewho spendhours each daycollecting solid are essential for meeting the target of 80 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Regenerate damaged natural ecosystems and restore soil organic carbon to improve natural sinks for carbon (through afforestation, reducing deforestation and restoration of soil organic carbon). Implement food waste reduction programs and energy recovery systems to maximize utilization of food produced and recover energy from food that is not consumed. Global deployment of these measures has the potential to reduce 20 percent of the current 50 billion tons of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and, in addition, meet the recently approved sustainable development goals by creating wealth for the poorest 3 billion. (solutions#1 and #4 through #9) have been or are currently being implemented in California(see 'The California Experience: 1960 to2015" in thisexecutivesumrrary). California's experienceprovidesvaluable lessons, and in some cases direct models, for scaling these solutions to other states and nations. Decades of research on Universityof California campuses and in national laboratories rran~ed by the universitycontributed significantlyto the developmentof these solutions. Several of the renewable energy technology solutions in solutions#6 and #7 have been fieldtested on Universityof California campuses (see "The Carbon Neutrality Initiative of the University of California" in this report). Scaling these solutions to other states and nations and eventually globally will require attitudinal and behavioral changes covered in solutions #2and#3. UC researchers currently are working on many of these solutions, along with coll~ues around the world. UC foculty also are involved in research on solution #10 to identify and improve carbon sinks in natural and rran~ed ecosystems by expanding existing, proven proctices worldwide. The cost of fully implementing these solutions will be significant,but California shows that it can be done while rraintaining a thriving economy. And the cost is well justifiedin light of the social costs of carbon emissions, including 7 million deaths every year due to air pollution linked to fossil fuel and biomass burningwhich also releases climate wanningpollutantsto the atmosphere. If we can scale these 10 solutions beginningnow, we can drarraticallybend the curve of deadlyair pollutionand globalwarmingworldwide. California can't bend the curve on its own. Neither can the Universityof California. But we can be part of powerfulnetworks and collaborations to scale these solutions. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 11 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297-00015 a? 1 .. ?It! 132w - .4 5 SELCV N. 3:180 -18.. EPA-HQ 171008 11.Unique Aspects of the 10 Solutions This report is one of the first documents that treats mitigation of air pollution and climate disruption under one framework. The solutions proposed here recognize the fact that fossil fuel combustion-which produces greenhouse gases - also produces particles and gasessuch as ozoneand black carbon,which also contribute to global warming. Others, such as sulfates, cause sunlight to dim and dry the planet.We can accelerate solutions and gain some time for long-term change to a carbon-neutral world by bending the curve of all of these pollutantsimmediatelyand simultaneously as partof one unified:itrategy. These 10 solutions leveragethe power of concern for human health worldwide. Peoplecare about human health. Burning fossil fuels causes both air pollution and climate changes that result in human illnesses and death. As the Lancet Commissionconcludedin June 2015: "The effectsof climate changeare beingfelt todayand future projectionsrepresent an unacceptablyhighand potentiallycatastrophicrisk to human health." This report recognizesthat intraregional,intra-generational and inter-generational equity and ethical issuesare of a culture of climate action inherent in climate change participate in solving our and any solutions to climate change.These issuesarise in part becauseconsumption by about 15 percent of the world's climate crisis. population contributes about 60 percentof climate pollution; while 40 percentof the population, who contributevery little to this pollution,as well as generations unborn,are likelyto sufferthe worst consequences of climate disruption. These solutions represent an integrated approach that includes familiar goals for achievingcarbon neutrality throughrenewable energy, with new goalsfor reducing SLCPsimmediately; building on Galifornia'ssuccess to encourage sub-national governance,regulations and market-based instruments; and innovative approaches in education,communication and incentives to encourage attitudinal and behavioral throughlocalizedinterventions that lower barriers for citizens to take concrete stepsto These solutions recognize the fact that fundamental changes in human attitudes and behaviors toward nature and each other are critical for bending the curve of air pollution and global warming. As a result, two of the solutions deal with bringing researchers and scholars together with communityandreligious leaders and stakeholders to lower barriers to addressing climate change from the local level on up. This report recognizesthe fundamental importance of effectivocommunication to reach and engage diverse constituencies throughout the world to bend the curve of emissions and warming, achievecarbon neutralityand stabilize Earth's climate. changes.To be effective,this integratedstrategyrequires engagementby diverse stakeholdersand the creation CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 13 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297-00017 111.Pathways for Implementing the 10 Solutions tions Clust(:r are in listed below, ScienceSolutions Cluster Societal Transformation Solutions Cluster GovernanceSolutions Cluster Market- and Regulations-Based Solutions Cluster Technology-Based Solutions Cluster Natural and Managed 8:;osystem Solutions Cluster 1. Bend the warmingcurve immediatelyby reducingshortlived climate pollutants(S...CPs)and sustainablyby replacingcurrent fossil-fueled energy systems with carbon neutral technologies. Achievethe S...CPreduction targets prescribed in solution #9 by2030 to cut projectedwarmingby approximately 50 percentby 2050. To limit long-termglobalwarmingto under 2 degreesCelsius,cumulative emissionsfrom now to 2050 must be lessthan 1 tri 11ion tons and approach zero emissionspost-2050.Solutions #7 to #9 cover technologicalsolutions to accomplishthese targets. Maximize use of existing technologies to cut emissions of methane and black carbon immediately.Since both are air pollutants,air pollutioncontrol agenciescan requirethis now. This also will reduceanother short-lived climate pollutant, ozone. Phaseout HFCs immediately- replacement Phaseout the current fossilfueled energy systemand reploc.e it with a diversemix of carbon-neutraland carbon sequestration technologies. Galifornia'stargets of 50 percent renewablesin power generation, a 50 percent increasein energy efficienc~nd a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by2030 providean excellentmedium-term roadmap for the nation and the world. If carbonemissionsare reducedby 80 percentby2050, transitioning to zero emissionssoon after, this action along with the S...CP mitigation action can keepglobal warming below 2 degreesCelsius for the rest of the century. Set up calibrated monitoring to quantify trends in emission sourcesand verify and make public the bending of ambient concentration curves of all air and climate pollutants. Societal Transfonnation refrigerant compounds are available now. Mitigation of SLCPsalso hassignificant local benefits, saving 2.4 million lives lost to outdoor pollution and 3 million lives lost to indoor pollutioneach year, and saving as much as 140 million tons of maize,rice,soybeanand wheat lost annuallyto air pollution. The intra-regional, intra-generational and inter-generationalequity issues of climate changeraisemajor questions of ethics andjustice.These questions compelus to reflectdeeply on our res!X)nsibility to eachother, to nature,and to future inhabitants of this planet - Homosapiensand all other living beingsalike. It is for these reasons that societal transformation merits such high ranking in this 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002297-00018 report,evenaboveregulatoryand technological solutions. Top-downaction will be difficulto implementwithout substantialsupportfrom the generalpublic,which can be acceleratedbysocietaltransformationsfrom the bottom up. 2. Foster a globalculture of climate action through coordinated public communication and education at local to globalscales.Combine technologyand policy solutions with innovative approachesto changingsocial attitudes and behavior. Promote coordinated information campaigns to inform choices available to strategic constituents: o The world's top carbon emitters,numbering 1 billion people,both individuals and institutions, who contribute about 60 percentof the world's greenhousegas emissions.This targetedaudience is easy to reachas they have readilyavailable accessto information technologies. o Investorsin and supportersof sustainable development throughoutthe world,by providing informationon best proctices in cleanenergy accessfor the world's poorest3 billion citizenswith very low carbonfootprints.Amongthe energy poor are forest managerswho offsetthe consumption and energy patternsof other consumers. o The 3 billion low carbon emitters can serve as partnersin worldwide de-carbonizationby actively committingthemselves, their families and their communities to learn about and to strategizefor future accessto carbon-neutralenergy. Makethe distribution of accountability and responsibility for sustainableenergyconsumption clear to all constituenciesthroughoccurate,transparent, widelyavailableenergycalculatorsthat revealhow muchenergydifferentconstituenciesareconsuming. Provide evidence-basedindicators of the cumulative impactsof climate injustices. Past studies have demonstrated that the poorest3 billion,whose emissionsaccount for only5 percentof total emissions, will neverthelessbe disproportionately harmed by climate change,and that energy access choices basedon more sustainable,low-carbon sourcesfor these populationswill result in prevention of climate disruption and collective harm to the planetand biodiversity. Create and integratecurricula at all levelsof education,from kindergartenthroughcollege,to educate a new generationabout climate change impactsand solutions. 3. Deepenthe globalculture of climate collaboration. Designvenueswhere stakeholders, communityand religiousleadersconvergearound concrete problemswith researchersand scholarsfrom all academicdisciplines, with the overall goalof initiatingcollaborative actions to mitigateclimate disruption. Climate solutions requireintegratedbehavioral, ethical,political,social,humanisticand scientific knowledge.Public and privateinstitutions at every scalecan create venueswhere decision makers, businessleaders,communityand religiousleaders, and academicsspanningthe natural sciences, social sciences,humanities and arts convergearound concrete problems,with the goalof creating dialogues,developingcommon understanding, and fostering collaborative action to mitigate climate disruption.Public universities must use their public missionsand mobilize their knowledgeand resources to partnerwith community-based agencies,local school districts and industrypartnersto educate locallyfor climate action. Initiate a culture of climate action by localizing interventions. Researchshows that behavioralchange and positivepublicopinionare more likelywhen the impactsof climate are recognizedat a local scaleand when barriers are lowered for peopleto participatein concrete actions to solve our climate crisis. Religious leaderscan integrateprotectionof the environmentwith their traditional effortsto protect the poor and the weak.A modelexhortation in this CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 15 ED_001389A_00002297-00019 vein is Pope Francis'encyclicalLaudatoSi', which stated: "We are faced not with two separatecrises,one environmentaland the other social,but rather with one complexcrisiswhich is both socialand environmental. Strategiesfor a solution demandan integrated approachto combatingpoverty, restoringdignity to the excluded,and at the sametime protecting nature." 4. Scaleup subnational models of governanceand collaboration around the world to embolden and energize national and international action. Usethe Galifornia examplesto helpother state-and city-leveljurisdictions becomelivinglaboratoriesfor renewabletechnologies and for regulatory aswell as market-based solutions, and build cross-sector collaborations amongurbanstakeholders becausecreatingsustainable cities is a keyto globalchange. State-and city-leveljurisdictions canset the standards and the pacefor nationalactions byservingas living laboratoriesfor renewabletechnologies, regulatorybased("command and control")strategiesandmarketbasedsolutions.Sucheffortsalsospeedup translation of scienceto policyactions,especiallyif thosewho havebeenmarginalized in systemsof governanceare includedin authenticway,:; that advancejusticeand equity.Over the pastseveraldecades,Galiforniahas shown that subnationalleadership in technological development, regulatoryaction,market-based solutionsand provision of equitablebenefitshas demonstrateda viable pathforward for other states and nations. National and subnationalleadersmust promote international action and cooperation in order for unilateral climate policies-such as California's climate mitigation mandateAB 32 or the American CleanEnergyand SecurityAct-to succeedand to minimize potentialdetrimental effects,such as the risk of emissionsleakageswhich arise when onlyone jurisdiction(Galifornia,for example)imposesclimate policybut other jurisdictionsdo not. 16 UNIVERSITY State-levelclimate policyshould encourage innovation and commercializationof technologies and solutions that can replacefossil fuels and concurrently enable the poorer nations of the world to achieveeconomic growth with zero and lowcarbon technologies. Accelerate the impact of cities on climate mitigation through: (1) municipal and regionalClimate Action Plans(CAPs);(2) green infrastructure projects,such as: (a) urban forestryto improvecarbon sequestration and reduce the urban heat islandeffect;(b) locally decentralizedmicro-gridsusingrenewableenergy sources;(3) smart mobilityplanningand designfor active livingand healthyplace-making (suchas mixeduse in-fill and transit oriented development),which reducesgreenhousegasemissionsby makingcities lessauto-centric and more walkableand bikeable; (4) incentivizingphotovoltaicretrofits and new net-zeroenergy technology; and (5) corresponding civic engagementand publiceducation strategies, accompanied by concrete local opportunitiesfor participatoryclimate action,to changeattitudes and behaviors. o The 25th sessionof the UN-Habitat's Governing Council (April2015)approvednew International Guidelineson Urban and Territorial Planning which highlightthe vital role cities can playin addressingclimate changeand other pressing social and ecologicalproblemsof the 21st century. o Cities cover lessthan 2 percentof Earth'ssurface, but theyconsume78 percentof the world's energy and producemore than 60 percentof all carbon dioxide and significantamounts of other greenhousegasemissions(UN-Habitat 2015). OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002297 -00020 /\fJ;3r·kr;jt-and R.ef1ulations-BasedSolu 5. Adopt market-based instruments to create efficient incentives for businesses and individuals to reduce emissions. These can include cap and trade or carbon pricingand should employmechanisms to contain costs. Adoptthe highqualityemissions inventories,monitoring and enforcement mechanisms necessary to make these approaches work. In settingswhere these institutions do not crediblyexist,alternative approaches such as direct regulationmay be the better approach-although often at highercost than market-based systems. cq 6. Narrowlytargetdirect regulatorymeasures-such as rebates and efficiencyand renewable energy portfolio standards-at highemissions sectors not covered by market-based policies.Create powerfulincentives that continuallyreward improvements to bringdown emissions while buildingpoliticalcoalitions in favor of climate policy. Terminate subsidies that encourage emission-intensive activities. Expandsubsidies that encourage innovation in low-emission technologies. The problemof emissions won't solve itself. Policymakers must send decisive signalsto firms;md individuals. So far,very few plocesin the world have adoptedstrong greenhouse gas mitigationpolicies. Galifornia is an exception,but Galifornia is less than 1 percentof the global problem.If we are to lead,we need to adoptpoliciesthat others can emulate;this is trickybecause the best policies will vary with local circumstances. In general,there are two flavorsJf emissions policies: direct regulation and marketbased (capand trade and carbon pricing)regulation. Economic theoryand empiricalevidence tell us that market approaches are more cost-effective. In a few cases where market based control systemshave been used at scale-such as tradingof lead pollution,tradingof sulfur dioxide pollution,and Europeanand Galifornian carbon markets-that theoryis borne out by evidence. Yet it is alreadyclear that market approaches are politicallyvery difficult to implementin part for the very reasons that many analystsfind them attractive: Theymake the real costs of action highlytransparent. As a matter of policydesign,we have chosen not to come down in favor of either market based or regulatory approaches, but to include both. Specifically, we recommend the following: It is imperativeto anticipateand designclimate policiesin a way that can contain compliancecosts. Pure regulation leaves policies susceptible to large increases in compliancecosts,particularlyin the presence of capacityor productionconstraints that are inherent in energy markets. Another artificial market distortion that must be corrected is subsidization of fossil fuels worldwide, which providescarbon-intensive fuels with an advantageover low-carbon fuels. Where necessary, chargeroyaltiesfor fossil fuels extracted on public lands and territorial waters. Regulationrequiresextremelysophisticated institutions and enforcement (suchas the Galifornia Air Resources Board)to preventleakageand to look ahead and assess how regulatorydecisions interact with business strategyand the evolution of technology. Revenues from cap and trade or carbon taxes should be used to fund aggressive pursuitof innovative new technologies that can bend the curve and protect disadvantaged communities and those adversely affected by cap and trade or other regulatory strategies (for example, through payments for environmental services to rural communities engaged in low carbon development paths, such as forest dependentcommunities). CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 17 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00021 The technological measuresunder solutions #7 and '#8, if fully implemented by 2050, will reduceglobal warming by as much as 1.5 degreesCelsiusby 2100, and combined with measuresto reduceSLCPsin solution #9 will keep warming below 2 degreesCelsiusduring the 21st century and beyond. Global emissionsof cq and other greenhousegasesin 2010 totaled 49 gigatonsof equivalentCO2 per year,with 75 percent due to increasesin cq and 25 percent from other greenhousegases.Thisestimatefrom the IPCC(2013) does not includetwo of the a.ais, ozoneand blackcarbon. About 32 gigatonsper yearare due to CO2 from fossil fuels and industrial processes.The challengefor technology solutions is to bringdown emissionsof cq to lessthan 6 gigatonsper year by2050, and reducethe emissionsof methaneand blackcarbonby 50 percentand 90 percent respectively by2030.This in turn will reduceozonelevelsby at least 30 percent.In addition,HFCsmust be phasedout completelyby 2030. To indicate the importanceof these non-CO2 mitigationmeasures:HFCsare the fastest growing greenhouse gases;if emissionscontinue to grow at current rates,HFCsalone will warm the climate by 0.1 degrees Celsiusby 2050 and 0.5-1.0 degreesCelsiusby 2100. 7. Promote immediate widespreaduse of mature technologies suchas photovoltaics, wind turbines,battery and hydrogenfuel cell electric Iight-dutyvehicles and more efficienmnd-usedevices,especiallyin lighting,air conditioning,appliancesand industrial processes.These technologieswill haveevengreater impact if they are the target of market-basedor direct regulatorysolutionssuch as those described in solutions #5 and #6 and have the potential to achieve30 percentto 40 percent reduction in fossiI fuel CO2 emissionsby2030. Useof renewablesand other low carbonenergysources are increasing rapidly.catalyzedbyfallingprices,in 2014, renewablesaccountedfor about 50 percentof all new power generationin the world (primarilyin China, J3pan,Germanyand the United States),representing an investmentof about $270billion. 18 UNIVERSITY Technologies exist todaythat can providesignificant carbon reductions if usedwidely.Achieve a more reliable and resilient electric gridwith at least 90 percent of all new generation capacity by 2030 from distributed and renewabletechnologies, such as photovoltaics, wind turbines,fuel cells,biogas and geothermal. Expandelectrification of highly-efficient endusedevices,especiallylighting,electric vehicles, machineryand plugload appliances. Examplesfrom UC campusesdemonstrate that deepenergy efficiencyinvestmentsare immediately amenableto widespreadimplementation. Acceleratethe transition from fossil to zero-carbon, locallysourcedtransportation fuels suchas hydrogen to power fuel-cell-powered electric vehicles, and lowcarbongridelectricityto power batteryelectric vehicles, to meet the carbon reduction requiredfrom the lightdutyand goodsmovementtransportation sectors. Overall,these measures,if implementedwith market and regulatorymeasures,can mitigateabout 1Ogigatonsper year of cq emissionsby 2030. 8. Aggressivelysupportand promoteinnovations to accelerate the completeelectrification of energy and transportationsystemsand improvebuildingefficiency. &Jpportdevelopmentof lower cost energy storage for applicationsin transportation,resilient large-scale and distributed micro-scalegrids,and residential uses. &Jpportresearchand developmentof a portfolioof new energy storagetechnologies, includingbatteries,supercapacitors, compressed air, hydrogenand thermal storage, as well as advancesin heat pumps,efficient lighting,fuel cells,smart buildingsand systemsintegration.These innovativetechnologiesare essentialfor meeting the targetof 80 percentreduction in cq emissionsby 2050. This solution will requiresignificantinvestments in both basicand appliedresearchand development, demonstration of prototypes,and commercial deployment. OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002297 -00022 Blergystorageis a vital enablingtechnologythat holds the keyto transitioningfrom fossil fuels for our vehicular needsand managingthe intermittency of renewableson the electric power grid.Over the pastfive years,electric vehicles have beenentering the market and storage technologiesare being tested now on various grid applications, mainly driven by innovations in lithium-ion batteries and hydrogen.While these innovations are promising, more research and development is needed to reduce the cost and ensurewidespreaddeployment of battery and hydrogenstorage.To achievecarbonfree electrification, complementaryenergy storage technologiesover a variety of scalesmust be developedand deployed,requiringa new generation of sophisticated dynamicsystemcontrol methods. of next-generationintelligentand more efficient 200 Im/Watt LEDlightingproducts.Thesewill be optimizedfor color and brightnessto improvework and school productivityand buildingefficiency. Residentialnaturalgasoonsumption can be reduced by50 percentor more with widespread deployment of heat pumpsand systemscoupledto solar thermal and solar powergeneration. To acceleratethis goal, we recommenddeploymentof an incentiveprogram of rebatescomparable to thosefor energyefficiency appliances. We also recommendthe elimination of disincentives such as outdated and inappropriate regulationsfor ground sourceheat pump installations. Although more challenging,widespreaddeployment of heat pumps in larger commercial buildings also is possible,but will requirefurther investmentsin applied Smart gridand micro-gridtechnology makepossible research and development to accomplish comparable the increasingpenetrationof intermittent solar reductionsin naturalgasconsumption. A promising approachthat now is beingtested is the capture of waste heat (andwater)from coolingtowersand recirculating it with heat pumpsinto the heatingloop of buildings. and wind generationresources,the emergence and integrationof plug-inelectric vehiclesinto the gridinfrastructure, and a proactiveresponseto the increasing demandfor enhancedgridresiliency, therebymeetingthe challenging environmental goalsassociatedwith climatechange,air qualityand water consumption. Theevolution of this technology represents a paradigmshift.Our powergridswill be designed, configuredmd operatedin the future across a rangeof scales,from smart homedevicesto central plantpower generation. Smart micro-grid systems alsoenablethe abilityto go offthe main grid,which is especiallyimportantin regionsthat historically have beendeprivedof energyaccess,suchasdeveloping countries in Africa and Asia. Advanced lightingbasedon efficient light-emitting diode (LED)technologyis now commercially available and hasa pay-backtime of onlyone to two years. The replacementof all incandescent, metal halide and fluorescent lightingfixtures with LEDlighting can reduceenergy consumption from lighting by 40 percent.Investmentsare neededto capturefurther efficiencies,which are possiblewith the development The developmentof zero-carbonfuels such as hydrogenand highly-efficient engineswith zero criteria pollutantemissionsis requiredto substantially reduce the carbon footprintfrom light-dutyvehicles and goodsmovement (medium-dutyand heavy-duty vehicles,locomotivesand ships)and,at the same time,achieve urban air qualitygoals. While full electrification is an achievablegoalfor lightdutyand medium-dutytransportation, some form of environmentally friendlyrenewablefuel solutions will be neededfor heavy-dutytransport,such as algal-based biofuels. Usingalgae,we can capture and beneficiallyreusecarbon dioxide producedfrom existingfossil energy sourcessuch as natural gas electricitygenerationto producediesel and jet fuels. Usingwastewater and saline waters for algaegrowth, we will not placeadditional burdenson our limited fresh water resources,and can remediate pollutants CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 19 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00023 such as nitrogen and phosphate from wastewaters before they reenter the environment to contaminate aquifersor oceans. Because these currentlyare not scalable in an economically competitivemanner, further research is needed in this area. 9. Immediatelymake maximum use of available technologiescombined with regulationsto reduce methane emissions by 50 percentand black carbon emissions by 90 percent. Phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)by 2030 by arrendingthe Montreal Protocol. In addition to the climate and health benefits described under solution #1, this solution will provideaccess to clean cookingfor the poorest3 billion peoplewho spendhours each day collecting solid biomass fuels and burning them indoors for cooking. The specifictechnological measures for reducing methane and black carbon are described in the table on page 21. These measures were developed by an international panel and reported in UNEP WMO Report,2011. 20 UNIVERSITY 10. Regeneratedamagednatural ecosystems and restore soil organic carbon to improvenatural sinks for carbon (throughafforestation, reducingdeforestation and restoration of soil organiccarbon). Implementfood waste reduction programs and energy recovery systemsto maximize utilization of food produc.ed and recover energy from food that is not consumed. Global deployment of these measures has the potential to reduce 20 perc.entof the current 50 billion tons of emissions of and other greenhousegases and,in addition, meet the rec.ently approved sustainable developmentgoalsby creatingwealth for the poorest 3billion. cq The potential for carbon mitigation from afforestation, reduced deforestation and restoration of soil organic carbon is about 8 to 12 gigatons per year. Integratepayrrentfor environmental services into global,national and local economic systemsto support forest-dependent communities in sustainingforest ecosystems as an effective and rapidmeans of sequestering carbon and achievingcarbon neutrality.This also will achieve co-benefits for biodiversity,hydrological cycles and soil development. Supportpoliciesthat reward complexagro-ecological systemsrather than simplified tree crop systems.Half the world is still rural,and rural communities need to be part of the solution. This can be facilitated by reformingagrarian policywith a focus on managing carbon,which in many areas will involve natural forest 1T0nagement or agroforestry. Globally,one-third of food producedis not eaten;in the United States 40 percentis not eaten. The CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted in producingthis wasted food contribute 3.3 gigatons annuallyto emissions. And when food is thrown away, methane-which is about 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas - is released in landfills. OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00024 TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES FOR CURBING SLCP EMISSiONS Measure 1 Sector CH, measures Extended pre-minedegasificatiorand recovery and oxidation of CH 4 from ventilation air coal mines Extended recovery and utilization,rather than venting,of associated gas and improvedcontrol of unintended fugitive emissions from production of oil and natural gas Extraction and transportof fossil fuels Reduced gas leakagefrom long-distance transmission pipelines Separation and treatment of biodegradable municipal waste throught reycling, composting and anaerobic digestion as well as landfill gas collection with combustion/utilization Waste management Upgrading primary wastewater treatment to secondary/tertiary treatment with gas recovery and overflowcontrol Control of CH 4 emissions from livestock, mainly through farm-scale anaerobic digestion of manure from cattle and pigs Agriculture Intermittent aeration of continuously flooded rice paddies BC measures (affecting BC and other co-emitted compounds) Diesel particlefilters for road and off-road vehicles Transport Elimination of high-emittingvehicles in road and off-road transport Replacing coal by coal briquettes in cooking and heating stoves Pellet stoves and boilers, using fuel made from recycled wood waste or sawdust, to replace current wood-burning technologies in the residential sector in industrialized countries Residential Introduction of clean-burning biomass stoves for cooking and heating in developing countries' 3 Substitution of clean-burning cookstoves using modern fuels for traditional biomass cookstoves in developing countries 2 ,3 Replacing traditional brick kilns with vertical shaft kilns and hoffman kilns Replocing traditional coke ovens with modem recovery ovens, including the improvement of end-of-pipe abatement measures in developing countries Industry Ban on open field burning of agricultural waste' Agriculture There are measures other than those identified in the table that could be implemented. For example, electric cars would have a similar impact to diesel particulate filters but these have not yet been widely introduced; forest fire controls could also be important but are not included due to the difficulty in establishing the proportion of fires that are anthropogenic. 2 Motivated in part by its effect on health and regional climate, including areas of ice and snow. 3 For cookstoves, given their importance for BC emissions, two alternative measures are included. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 21 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00025 SELC EPA, No. 3:1 icv"it: x} g? f. .2, a? @342 5 45325? .: 2154515' 7 p RT T E F Y,T s, BLE S >'"lti,j'" ,..,'t,~,.. /l"lf"1,.,, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00027 1,, THE URGENC'f I. How Did We Get Here? The inventionof the steamengineand the subsequent acquisitionof breathtakingtechnologicalprowess culminatingin the current information age two centuries later have led to enormous improverTents in humanwellbeing.But the impressiveimprovementhas come at a hugecost to the naturalenvironment.The combinationof air and water pollution,speciesextinction,deforestation and climate changehasbecomean existential threat to life on this planet.The gargantuantransformation of the ANTHIH)PO( ENE: GROWTH IN HUMAN Actwrm:s Human activity Increase in size World population Increased six-fold Urban population Increased thirteen-fold World economy Increased fourteen-fold Industrial output Increased forty-fold considerwhether the Holoceneepoch- the past 12,000 yearsof relatively constant climate and environmental Energyuse Increased sixteen-fold conditions Coal production Increased seven-fold Carbon dioxide emission Increased seventeen-fold Sulfur dioxide emission Increased thirteen-fold Lead emission Increased eight-fold Water use Increased nine-fold Fish catch Increased thirty-fivefold Blue whale population 99 percentdecrease environment has stimulated that stimulated ecologists and geologists to the development of human civilization-has ended, and a new epoch, the Anthropocene, hasbegun,an epoch that recognizes that humanexploitation of Earth hasbecomeakin to a geologic force (seeside table). Most of the changeslisted in this table, and many others, haveoccurred in a span of time equivalentto a human lifetime beginningin the 1950s,which is consideredthe beginningof the so-called "greatacceleration"of human impacts.This also is the periodthat hasseen the steepest increasein globalmean temperatures,globalpollution and deforestation. Taken from Climateand Common Good,Statement: P. D~upta*, V. Ramanathan*, P.Raven*, Mgr M. SanchezSorondo*, M. Archer, PJ. Crutzen, P. Lena, YT. Lee, M.J. Molina, M. Rees, J. Sachs, J. Schellnhuber. Published by Pontifica~cademy of Sciences, April 2015. * 24 UNIVERSITY Corresponding authors OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_ 00002297 -00028 11.Carbon Dioxide Is Not the Only Problem The greenhousegasCO2 contributes about 50 percent to the manmade heat added to the planet.The other 50 percent is due to several other greenhousegasesand particles in soot. Thosegreenhousegasesinclude nitrous oxide,methane,halocarbons (CFCs,HCFCsand HFCs),and tropospheric ozone.The warming particles in soot are black carbon and brown carbon. The sources of these pollutants includefossil fuels (ozone,methane,blackcarbon), agriculture(methaneand nitrous oxide),organicwastes (methane), biomasscookingand open burning (blackand brown carbon)and refrigeration (halocarbons). Armng thesepollutants, the SLCPs(rrethane, black carbon,troposphericozone and HFCs)have Iifet imesof days (blackcarbon)to 15 years (HFCs), which are much shorter than the centuryor longerlifetimes of CO2 and nitrous oxide. When we add up the warmingeffects of CO2 with the othergreenhouse gases,the planetshould have warmedbyabout 2.3 degrees Celsius,insteadof the 0.9 degrees Celsiusobservedwarming.About 0.6 degreesCelsiusoftheexpected warming is still stored in the deep oceans(to about 1,500 rreters). That heat is expectedto be released and contribute to atmospheric warmingin two to four decades. The balanceof 0.8 degreesCelsius r1 11 1d·t'1•c·)r·p''lart·1,...lec:. ..1,clcr·}ol ·tt'·•·e ., ,1,Jc, ,.., .,,._,1·1·1--.·t <.'.1 ,...,.., •..,,., , l.~~I 1t· .car· ...., I.,, P'"'""l atrnospt·lere. Thisrna,kinf.J effa:hNillgo avvaywhen 1 1 1 t"t:,)f1'c:.r:ts,•ur·1'io· 1 n n !I involvesa complicationdue to air pollutionparticles.In addition to blackand brown particles(which warm the climate),fossil fuel combustionemits sulfate and nitrate particles,which reflectsunlight like mirrors and cool the planet.The mechanismsof warmingand cooling are extremelycomplex.But when we add up all of the effects,sulfate and nitrate particleshavea net coolingeffectof about 0.8 degrees Celsius(0.3-1.2degreesCelsius range).Summing0.9 degreesCelsius of observedwarming,0.6 degrees Celsiusstored in the oceans,and the 0.8 degreesCelsiusmasked by particles,adds up to the 2.3 degreesCelsiuswarmingwe should haveseenfrom the build up of greenhouse gasesto-date. The particlecoolingeffect of 0.6 degreesCelsiusshould not be thoughtof as offsettinggreenhouse gaswarming.This is becausethe lifetimes of these particleslast just days,and when stricter air pollution controls worldwide eliminate the emission of these particles, the 0.6 degreesCelsiuscooling effect will disappear.This however does not implythat we should keepon polluting,since air pollutionleadsto 7 million deaths worldwide each year, as well as reductions in precipitation and decreasesin crop yields. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 25 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00029 111.Planetary Scale Warming: How Large and How Soon? Of the CO2 releasedto the air,44 percentremains for a centuryor longer;25 percentremainsfor at least a millennium. Due to fast atmospherictransport,CO2 envelopesthe planetlike a blanket.That blanket is growing thicker and warmer at an acceleratingpace. It took us 220 years-from 1750 to 1970-toemit about 1 trillion tons of cq. We emitted the next trillion in lessthan 40 years.Of the total 2 trillion tons humanshaveput into the atmosphere,about 44 percent is still there.At the current rate of emission-38 billion tons per yearand growingat a rate of about 2 percentper year-the third trillion will be added in lessthan 20 yearsand the fourth trillion by2050. How does the CO2 blanket warm the planet?It works just as a cloth blanket on a cold winter nightkeepsus warm.The blanketwarms us by trappingour bodyheat. Likewise, the CO2 blanket trapsthe heat givenoffbythe Earth's surface and the atmosphere.The surface and atmosphereabsorbsunlightand releasethis solar energy in the form of infrared energy,some of which escapesto space.The human-madeCO2 blanket is very efficielll!t blocking someof this infraredenergy,and thus warms the atmosphere and the surface. How large?Eachtrillion tons of emitted cq can warm the planetby as much as 0.75 degreesCelsius. The 2 trillion tons emitted as of 201O hascommitted the planetto warmingby 1.5 degreesCelsius.The third trillion we would add under business-as-usualscenarioswould commit us to warmingby 2.25 degreesCelsiusby 2030. How soon?A number of factors enter the equation. To simplify,we likelywill witness about 1.5 degrees Celsius (or two-thirds of the committed warming)by 26 UNIVERSITY vvc: \/\/ ! t C'
  • ,..., ...:,.., .... ,, irr"•'·3te k. . ,,,,, ~Ii several majorhurricanes,floods, droughtsand firesn the United States. Within wealthynations,poor communities will tend to suffer disproportionately from the health effectsof climate change. While the focus of climate change discussions is on CO2 from fossil fuel combustion,particulate pollution- nitrogenoxides,toxic pollutantsand ozone created from power plants,vehicles and other fossil fuel combustion - also have devastating impacts on human lives and well-being, including: Direct and Indirect Health Effects of Coal,Petroleum and Gas (LancetCommission, June 2015) . . . . . 3 million premature deaths every year from air pollution Mortalityand morbidity Cardiovascular disease Acute respiratoryinfection Stroke Mental health Vector-borne diseases Water- and food-borne diseases originating from fossil fuel combustion. Heat stroke and other extreme weather related effects Stroke,cardiovascular disease, acute and chronic respiratory Lungcancer, drowning, under-nutrition disease and adverse birth outcomes. More than 200 million tons of crops are destroyedevery year by ozone pollution. Mega-droughtsin sub-Saharan Africa and the lndo-Gangetic plainsof South Asia. The blockingof sunlightby particles . . Harmful algalblooms Mass migration Decreases in labor productivity Cost $70 to $840 per ton of CO2 from combustion of coal and petroleum,and the resulting surface dimminghas slowed down rain-bearing weather system,. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 31 ED_001389A_00002297 -00035 .. .,,, ~·- '' ..... ···-"-., SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ... ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00036 VII. Environmental Equity, Ethics, and Justice: What Is Our Responsibility? One billion of us consume about 50 percent of the fossil fuel energy consumed on Earth and emit about 60 peroontof the greenhousegases. In contrast,the poorest3 billion, who still relyon pre-industrial era technologiesfor cookingand heating,contribute only5 percent to CO2 pollution.Thus,the climate Small island nations in the problem is due to unsustainable 100 million people-such as Bangladesh-will move to India and other neighboring nations. While likely slower consumptionbyjust 15 percentof the world's population.Fixingthe problemthus has to simultaneously lower the carbon footprintof the wealthiest 1 billion,while allowing for growthof energy consumption and expansionof carbon sinks,such as forests,needed to empower the poorest3 billion. It is in this context that it is critical to bend the curve through transforming to carbon neutrality in developed nations while sharing technology that enables developing nations to leapfrog over use of fossil fuels to produce the energy they need. Indeed,for the poorest3 billion,doingso is literally a matter of life and death. For example: The poorest3 billion live mainlyin rural areas relyingon mixed market and subsistence farmingon few acres.A fouryear mega-drought of the type that Galifornia is experiencing now would changetheir forms of livelihood and expandthe likelihood of both temporaryand perrranentmigration. tropicalPacificalready are facing mass migration caused by increasedsea level. If sea level rise reaches1 meter or more, as is plausible with businessas usual, lowlying coastal nations with populations of more than If the carbon footprintof the entire 7 billion became comparable to that of the top 1 billion,global emissions cq would increasefrom the current 38 billion to 150 billion tons every year and we would add a trillion tons every sevenyears, in turn adding0.75 degreesCelsius warmingevery seven years. than sudden catastrophic events, the size and scope of Such impacts mean that children such climate migration could alive today,their children,and their grandchildren, alongwith all generationsto come, will suffer from our unsustainable burningof fossil fuels. What is our responsibility to them? make today'sSyrianmigration crisis look mild by comparison. With meltingof Hirralayanand other glaciersystems,such as those of the Andes,more than 1.5 billion peoplewould be left without most of their permanentwater supply. Theseare critical practical issues,but there are even more substantial inter-generational ethical issues.A largefraction of CO2 and other greenhouse gasesstay in the air longerthan a century,and when combined with the added heat stored in the depthsof the ocean,will affect climate for thousands of years. Moreover,increased CO2 makesthe oceansmore acidic,which threatens at least a quarterof the ocean'sspecies with extinction. CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 33 ED_001389A_00002297-00037 Citations in the Report The 10 solutions in the executive summarywere distilled from the critical analysesprovidedin the seven chapterslisted below.Theseseven chaptersalongwith the executive summarycomprisethe full report: Bendingthe Curve:lO Scalable Solutionsfor Climateand Carbon Mitigation.The full report will be published in spring2016after peer review.The sevenchapters, along with the referencestherein,form the basisof the quantitativeestimates providedin the executivesummary. In addition to the sevenchapters, we also list a few published studies and reportsbelow which providedus with critical analyses and some of the quantitativeestimatesmentioned in the executivesummary. Collins,W.D.,SJ. Davis,R. Bales, J. Burney,R. McCarthy,E. Rignot and D.G.Victor,2016: Scienceand Pathwaysfor Bendingthe Curve, Chapter 1, Bending the Curve:lO ScalableSolutionsfor Carbonand Climate Neutrality,V. Ramanathan, D. Kammenand F. Forman,Eds., University of california Press, Oakland. Auffhammer, M., C.-Y.C. Lin Lawell,J.B.Bushnell,0. Deschenes and J. Zhang, 2016: Economic Considerations,Chapter2, Bending the Curve:lO ScalableSolutionsfor Carbonand Climate Neutrality,V. Ramanathan,D. Kammenand F. Forman,Eds.,Universityof california Press,Oakland. 34 UNIVERSITY Auston,D.,J.Brouwer,S. DenBaars, W. Glassley,W.B. ...enkins, P. Peterson,S.Samuelsenand V. Srinivasan, 2016: Assessing the Current and Future Needsfor High lmpactTechnologyResearch, Development& Deployrrent for MitigatingClimate Change, Chapter 3, Bending the Curve:10 ScalableSolutionsfor Carbonand Climate Neutrality,V. Ramanathan, D. Kammenand F. Forman,Eds., University of california Press, Oakland. Mitigation: Institutions, Ideas, and Actions, Bendingthe Curve:lO ScalableSolutionsfor Carbonand Climate Neutrality,V. Ramanathan, D. Kammenand F. Forman,Eds., University of California Press, Oakland. Sarnosky,A.D.,J.Christensen, H. Han,T. Matlock,J. Miles, R Rice, L. W:lsterling and L.D.White, 2016: Chapter 7, EstablishingCommon Ground: Finding Better ways to CommunicateAbout Climate Disruption, Bendingthe Curve:lO Delmas,M., D. Feldman,D. Kammen, M. Mielke,D. Miller,R. Ramesh, D. Rotman and D. Sperling, 2016: How Do We Scaleand Implement Technologiesand Best Practicesto State, National and Global Levels? Chapter 4, Bending the Curve:10 ScalableSolutionsfor Carbonand Climate Neutrality,V. Ramanathan, D. Kammenand F. Forman,Eds., University of California Press, Oakland. ScalableSolutionsfor Carbonand Climate Neutrality,V. Ramanathan, D. Kammenand F. Forman,Eds., University of california Press, Oakland. ex,~cutive summary: Allison,J., C. Horowitz, A. MillardBa11,D. Pressand S. Pincetl, 2016: Paths to carbon Neutrality: Lessons from Galifornia, Chapter 5, Bending the Curve:lO ScalableSolutionsfor Carbonand Climate Neutrality,V. Ramanathan,D. Kammenand F. Forman,Eds.,University of California Press,Oakland. Forman,F.,S.B. Hecht, R. MorelloFrosch,K. Pezzoliand G. Solomon, 2016: Chapter 6, Equitable Social Approaches to Climate Change I. Radiative Forcing, carbon Emissionsand Future Temperature Trends: Myhre,G. and D. Shindell et al, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In Chapter 8, Climate Change2013: The PhysicalScience Basis,Contributionof Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanelon Climate Change,T.F.Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, SK Allen,J. Boschung,A. Nauels,Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley, Eds.,Cambridge University Press,Gambridge,United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00038 IntergovernmentalPanelon Climate Change,2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. 0. Edenhofer,et al., Eds.,Gambridge Univ. Press,Gambridge. Crutzen, P.J.,2002: Geology of Mankind. Nature, 415, 23. II. carbon Mitigation Pathways: Fay, M., S. Hallegatte,A Vogt-Schilb, J. Rozenberg,U. Narloch and T. Kerr, 2013: Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future. Climate Change and Development, World Bank,\/Vashington,D.C. Birol, F., B. \/Vanner,F. Kesicki,C. Hood, M. Baroni,S. Bennett, C. Besson,S. Bouckaert,A Bromhead, 0. Durand-Lassserve, F. K~icki ,M. Klingbeil, A Kurozumi,E. Levina,J. Liu, S. McCoy,Pwet Olejarnik, N. Selmet, D. Sinopoli, S. Suehiro,J. Truby, C. Vailles, D. Wilkinson, G. Zazias,S. Zhang,2015: World Energy Outlook: Special Report-Energy and Climate Change, International Energy Agency,Paris. World Bank-Ecofys,2014: State and Trends of carbon Pricing. IEA-2014.World Energy Investment Outlook, Special Report, World Bank, \/Vashington,D.C. Solutions Network and the Institute for SustainableDevelopmentand International Rslations,SSNand ISDIR,New York and Paris. 111. Short-Lived Climate Pollutants IV. Natural and Managed Ecosystems Lal,R, 2006: EnhancingCrop Yields in the DevelopingCountries Through Restoration of the SoiI Organic carbon Pool in Agricultural Lands, Shindel!,D.,V. R3manathan,F. R3es, L.Cifuentes, N.T.Kim Oanh, 2011: Land Degradation and Development. Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon Jan,0, C. Tistivint, A Turbe, C. O'Connor, P. Lavelle,A Flammini, N. EI-HageScialabba,J. Hoogeveen, M. lweins,F.Tubiello,L.Peiser,and C. Batello, 2013: Food Wastage and Tropospheric Ozone, United Nations EnvironmentProgramrre, Nairobi. Shindel!,D.,J.C.I.Kuylenstierna,E. Vignati, R. van Dingenen,M. Amann, M., Z. Klimont, S.C.Anenberg, N. Muller, G.Janssens-Maenhout,F. R3es,J.Schwartz,G. Faluvegi,L. Pozzoli,K. Kupiainen,L. Hi:iglundlsaksson,L.8nberson, D. Streets, V. R3manathan,K. Hicks, N.T. Kim Oanh, G. Milly, M. Williams, V. Demkine,D. Fowler, 2012: SimultaneouslyMitigating NearTerm Climate Changeand Improving Human Health and FoodSecurity. Science, 335, pp.183-9. R3manathan,V. and Y. Xu, 2010: The CopenhagenAccord for limiting global warming: Criteria, constraints, and availableavenues.Proceedings 17: 197-209. Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources, Summary Report, FAO,Rome. V. Regulations Press,D.M., 2015: American Environmental Policy: The Failures of Compliance, Abatement and Mitigation, EdwardElgar, Inc., Cheltenham,UK. Sabel,C. and D.G.Victor, 2015: Governing Global Problemsunder Uncertainty: Making Bottom-Up Climate PolicyWork, forthcoming in Climatic Change, Springer, New York. of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academyof Sciences, \/Vashington,D.C. Williams,J.H.,B. Haley,F. Kahrl,J. Moore, AD.Jones, M.S.Torn, H. Mc...eon, 2014: Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States. Report of the Deep Decarbonization PathwaysProject of the Sustainable CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 35 ED_001389A_ 00002297 -00039 ?x 3.. 1 233; '5 15 53? 5) '5 35:5235:?~32 mi,? m; m. ?73% ?32: ~31 3-15.11 . . $.25 aw WI. #25331, ?5 5/ I {4150 I \w a: -. ?52?3. 5 5 5 295.15%? 51 5%4 (431?. w? II '9 5% 3 ?gm 3:;33595 1 II (35310, 53' 52513355; 6 i3? 452,519?2 3.335 ?3g2.5: 3 .33 @2333 .320 A: I: ,3 I 4?41 55? 5:35? 3 5 II 52%i? 2,55 3 35%0555 532,3; r. g, ?1'33 i .V ?3423? 3 g??gafggf 5 d1 5 5/ - 5 59536535 Ex 5 .52 55?? @214 pm 0&5 $43.52" 50 5 x. [g 6 2.55 3.255,, I II K5, ?Is I ?8ng 3, 33353253353? 5 3 I A \k?w 5% ?5 ?5305535 5x133 5?ng 2 a 23: '4 <23? m; ?5 v, I, 3 3553:33 xv?? :51? ?0 ,0 3 35335535553301 ?x 3Q 533*- {51% ?r ?3 .52? 359?359033 ?53 >31Mx$ 5 3335 A v; 3,5500% ,3 33% 3:103?? 1:3 ?05? 1/33 n? 3333: 5303?? m? ~53 5 I e: 1?13? 1:;sz ngm?Igmgm ?3455' s: \3 Ivy <55, 13?? <5 xi? ?($451 ?219?ag? I a $14.5; I :3 3'7; .41 15w ,5 a .r 17], gs? SELCV EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 Authors of the Full Report to be Published in Spring 2016 VeerabhadranRamanathan Daniel Kammen Fonna Forman c:ontri bt!t()fS Juliann E.Allison MaximilianAuffhammer David Auston RogerBales AnthonyD. Sarnosky ...eekBrouwer Jennifer Burney ..amesBushnell LifangChiang ..bnChristensen William D. Collins StevenJ. Davis Magali Delmas Steven DenBaars Olivier Deschenes David Feldman William Glassley Hahrie Han SusannaB. Hecht GaraHorowitz BryanJenkins C.-Y.CynthiaLin Lawell Teenie Matlock RyanMcCarthy Michael Mielke ...eekMiles Adam Millard-Ball Dorothy Miller RachelMorello-Frosch Walter Munk Per Peterson Stephanie Pincetl Daniel Press R3mamoorthyRamesh RonaldE. Rice EricRignot DouglasRotman Scott Samuelsen Gina Solomon Daniel Sperling Venkat Srinivasan David G. Victor ByronWasham LeRoyWesterling Lisa D. White JunjieZhang Keith Pezzoli L. Chiang Senior Editor J. Christensen CARBON SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE 37 ED_ 001389A_ 00002297 -00041 ResearchFoci of UC Climate Solutions Group R;;:nanau;an (Chair), San Diego. Climate and atmospheric science;carbon mitigation; interdisciplinary solutions. J ,nnilH San Diego. Energy, environment,climate change;food security,productionand agriculture; povertyalleviation. policy,adaptivemanagementand sustainable development. (ViceChair),San Diego.Political theory;globaljustice; sustainable and equitableurban transformation. , Davis.Energyand environmental economics,industrial organizationand regulation,and energy policy. r,,.:;k('N•·'V Davis. Geothermal energy; metamorphicprocesses, fluid/rock interaction and continental growth. (ViceChair), Berkeley.Renewableand appropriate energy technologies; energy access; energy and innovation policy. Office of the President.Scienceand innovation policy;program and budgetary evaluation;geographyand health. Santa Barbara. Environmental politics,civic and politicalengagement,political behavior. Riverside.Political economy, environmental politics and policy;community-based social change. ...b,1011 Los Angeles. Environmental journalism,writing, editing;strategiccommunications; mappingand visualization. 8. Los Angeles. Political ecology;climate change adaptationand mitigation;tropics; longterm resiliencestrategies. ,ll..,1rf1Y1;;irnr1 ~:,r,Berkeley. Greenhousegas emissions forecasting;impactsof air pollution on agriculture. i\/:l!ian: D. BerkeleyLab (LBNL).Interactions among sunlight, heat,coupledclimate system,global environmental change. :: ·,,,, Los Angeles. Galifornia and federal climate policy and local sustainability; climate Dd•.;ic~ J;..u,,,1r:in, Santa Barbara.carbon neutralityappliedresearchsolutions; materials science and engineering. Irvine. Sustainable systemsanalysis; strategiesfor lowcarbon globaldemand for energy, food and goods. Davis.Energy systemsin agriculture,biomassfuel production,thermal conversion, and environmental impocts. •;;,•n,·,-.,,::,n . Merced. Adaptationof water supplies,critical ecosystems and economy to the impactsof climate warming. D. Berkeley. Assessing ecologicalbaselinesand how ecosystems respondto climate change;sciencecommunication. J1c!,Bn)uN-er,Irvine. Alternative energy; hightemperature electrochemical dynamicsand integratedenergy systems. 38 UNIVERSITY 0 Los Angeles. Firm behavior in climate change mitigation; barriers and incentives to energy efficiernolutions. 0 ~ Santa Barbara. "'rn..,•·:."·, 1 Solid state lightingand energy; effect of materials propertieson hightech device perforrnmce. Climate changehealth and economic impacts;relationshipbetween energy and labor markets. Irvine. Water resources management and change legislative reform C.-Y Davis. Environmental and natural resource economics; energy economics; industrial organization. , Merced. Cognitive science,linguistics; climate communications; politicallanguage. CA Air Resources Board.Transportation, energy and climate planningand policy;SLCPs reductions planning. OF CALIFORNIA SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002297 -00042 Silicon Valley Leadership Group.Corporate environmental sustainability; state and Federal climate changepolicy. M1ct1;ir,i Irvine, Religion,science and the environment;religion, literature and international relations; religion,poetryand music ,JK:! Subject: RE: WaPo Heartland's new president, former Congressman Tim Huelskamp, tweeted about this in the AM. https ://twitter. com/Cong Huelskam p/status/9051 04044636737 536 Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002301-00004 Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:10 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: WaPo Thank you Jim! I'll check on the invite for you. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org1 Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 3:07 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: RE: WaPo John, This is outstanding! I didn't realize until reading it that the focus of the hit-piece was you. Congrats! I've shared this story with all Heartland staff, asking them to jump to your aide and defend this position. I had to laugh, though, at the story. It's not that Eilperin would have written a story other than the pearl-clutching one she did. It's that she went to Christie Todd Whitman for comment. That she would defend the politicization of EPA grants - which for decades have gone only to alarmist nonprofits and scientists, not to mention wasteful scams like subsidizing "green" cookstoves - shows how EPA grows and becomes more alarmist through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. At least, that is, until now. Congrats! And let me know how else we can help. I expect an op-ed, a couple of blog posts, some social media activity, and perhaps a podcast on this. And don't forget! Can you check on our invitation to Administrator Pruitt to give a keynote address at our America First Energy Conference on November 8 in Houston? We've got three keynote slots, and I've got tentative affirmation from Zinke to take one of them. I'd love to have Zinke and Pruitt speak to an audience of hundreds of energy industry influentials. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002301-00005 Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:27 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: WaPo Jim: Check out this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-now-requires-politicalaides-sign-off-for-agency-awards-grant-applications/2017 /09/04/2fd707 a0-88fd-11 e7-a94f3139abce39f5 sto y. html?hpid=hp hp-more-top-stories epagrants-730pmwinner%3Ahomepage%2Fsto y • Accountability and process being put in place to protect the taxpayers. • An agency that's actually NOT spending the taxpayer's money! • The last administration inserted its politics into nearly all funding awards, we're taking politics out. • This is draining the swamp, it's what the American people voted for. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002301-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Wed 9/6/2017 2:29:08 PM Myron Ebell in the Washington Post Friends, The Washington Post ran a long, inaccurate, and hopelessly biased account of the history the global warming debate, parroting the left' s framing of the issue as industry stoolies versus "the science" and liberal "consensus" versus a few conservative wacknuts: htt s://www.washin on ost.com/invcstiuations/a-two-dccade-crusadc-b -conscrvativc-chariticsfuclcd-trumps-exit-from-paris-climatc-accord/2017 /09/05/fcb8d9fe-6 726-1 I c7-992822d00a47778f sto .html?hpid=hp rhp-morc-top-storics coolerhcads6pm%3Ahomcpagc%2Fsto &utm tcrm=.189650cfc8bb Still, Myron deserves the credit he gets. Congratulations to him. While I wasn't in Paris in 2015 to witness this moment, I watched the video and will always appreciate this: Ebell and several coalition allies were also there [in Paris], at a day-long "counter conference" held at a Paris hotel on Dec. 7 in opposition to the agreement. Their arguments were familiar: Government regulation, not global warming, was the true threat. They claimed scientific data supported their cause. Ebell joked about how some Cooler Heads members worked to shape public debate. "I'd say, Heartland does the science, CFACT [the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow] does the activism, and unfortunately it is left to CEI to do the politics in Washington, D.C.," Ebell said, according to a video of the event. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002302-00001 Ebell added: "Thank God for Heartland ... " Before he could finish, protesters in the audience drowned him out. "Thank God for Heartland! Thank God for Heartland!" the protesters yelled sarcastically. "Thank God!" For once, the protesters were right! Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002302-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 To: From: Sent: Subject: Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Tue 9/5/2017 7:48:27 PM RE: WaPo Thanks. And Heartland's H. Sterling Burnett, who produces our Climate Change Weekly email, will be featuring a commentary on this story as his lead item. Past examples at the link below. https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/newsletters/climate-change-weekly Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:10 PM To: Jim Lakely Subject: RE: WaPo Thank you Jim! I'll check on the invite for you. From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org1 Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 3:07 PM To: Konkus, John SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002304-00001 Subject: RE: WaPo John, This is outstanding! I didn't realize until reading it that the focus of the hit-piece was you. Congrats! I've shared this story with all Heartland staff, asking them to jump to your aide and defend this position. I had to laugh, though, at the story. It's not that Eilperin would have written a story other than the pearl-clutching one she did. It's that she went to Christie Todd Whitman for comment. That she would defend the politicization of EPA grants - which for decades have gone only to alarmist nonprofits and scientists, not to mention wasteful scams like subsidizing "green" cookstoves - shows how EPA grows and becomes more alarmist through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. At least, that is, until now. Congrats! And let me know how else we can help. I expect an op-ed, a couple of blog posts, some social media activity, and perhaps a podcast on this. And don't forget! Can you check on our invitation to Administrator Pruitt to give a keynote address at our !....!!..!==---'---"==~:u......c":::!:... "'::::... n,_,_;-'c:'"'::t:....::.'"'::..:..' "".:..:::.'="' on November 8 in Houston? We've got three keynote slots, and I've got tentative affirmation from Zinke to take one of them. I'd love to have Zinke and Pruitt speak to an audience of hundreds of energy industry influentials. Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002304-00002 From: Konkus, John [mailto:konkus.john@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:27 AM To: Jim Lakely Subject: WaPo Jim: Check out this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-now-requires-politicalaides-sign-off-for-agency-awards-grant-applications/2017 /09/04/2fd707 a0-88fd-11 e7-a94f3139abce39f5 sto y. html?hpid=hp hp-more-top-stories epagrants-730pmwinner%3Ahomepage%2Fsto y • Accountability and process being put in place to protect the taxpayers. • An agency that's actually NOT spending the taxpayer's money! • The last administration inserted its politics into nearly all funding awards, we're taking politics out. • This is draining the swamp, it's what the American people voted for. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002304-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 9/5/2017 3:27:33 PM Paul Driessen on exactly how many wind turbines it would take ... This is a difficult point, well made. Joe September 5, 2017 Revisiting wind turbine impacts Erroneous recent calculation highlights need to assess renewable energy sustainability claims Paul Driessen It's amazing, though hardly surprising, how quickly some used Hurricane Harvey's devastation to claim that fossil fuel emissions are driving catastrophic climate change and weather. Their proffered solution, of course, is to replace those fuels with "clean, sustainable, renewable" energy. I've critiqued this supposed solution many times, on multiple grounds. Unfortunately, a hasty numerical calculation for a recent column was way off base, and readers properly chastised me for the error. I just blew it, using megawatts instead of megawatt-hours to derive the number of wind turbines ... and amount of land ... it would take to replace the world's 2016 electricity entirely with wind energy. My conclusion that it would require 830 million turbines and twice the land area of North America was thus off by embarrassing amounts. However, my reviewers offered many "correct" numbers. Their turbine totals ranged from 2 million to 4, 10 and 12 million; their acreage figures from 0.5 to 40, 60 and even 247 per turbine. Total acreage for all the turbines ranged from the size of France or Texas - to half of North America. Energy scholar Cork Hayden graciously provided analytical aid. Bottom line: Assumptions are key - about turbine size; number, location and extent of good wind sites; ability to actually erect turbines on those sites; wind turbine capacity factor, in average hours per day of electricity generation; duration and quality of wind power per year, especially as turbines proliferate into increasingly poor wind areas; and power generation needed to charge huge battery arrays to ensure reliable electricity during multiple windless days (2, 7, 14 or more) when turbines provide no power. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002306-00001 Another variable, of course, is the amount of electricity that is to be replaced by wind. In 2016, the world used 25 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of electrical energy, generated by fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear power stations, with minor contributions from wood (biomass) and trivial amounts of wind and solar. Year-round average power generation was 2.85 million megawatts (MW) or 2.85 terawatts (TW) - compared to zero generation in 1881. Electricity makes our industries, jobs, travel, communication, living standards, health and safety possible, and demand will certainly grow as more nations electrify, and more vehicles are battery-powered. Here are my fundamental assumptions: Wind turbines replace 100% of today's 2.85 TW global electricity generation, by some future date - as many activists and politicians insist we must (and can) do. Turbines are all 1.8-MW nameplate power. Average turbine capacity factor gradually falls from 33% to 16.5% as the best wind sites are utilized, and much poorer sites must be developed. (In the USA many of the =='--"-----'--=== are off the W ashington-to-Califomia and Maine-toGeorgia coastlines, and in the Great Lakes, where water depths and powerful local opposition would make it impossible to install many turbines. Onshore turbine size is limited by the size of blades that can be hauled by trucks on winding roads. The same situation would likely apply around most of the globe.) Further assumptions: One-third of turbine output powers society; two-thirds charge batteries that provide power for 48 of every 72 hours that wind is not blowing. And winds always cooperate with that scheme - always arriving just in the nick of time, as batteries are depleted, and never disappearing for more than two days, even during sweltering summers or frigid winters when demand soars but winds disappear. Of course, most of these assumptions exist only in the realm of fairies, pixie dust, green energy utopia and easy number crunching. They are meant to initiate important analyses and debates that climate alarmists, renewable energy proponents, legislators and policy makers have never conducted. Using these assumptions, generating 25 billion megawatt-hours would require 1.6 1. functioning at full 1.8-MW capacity in strong winds, all day, every day, with no worries about storage. If they operate only eight hours a day (33% engineered capacity), we just use electricity when it's available, instead of when we need it. But that's terribly inconvenient and disruptive. So we employ the Dr. Hayden system, instead. We erect 4.8 million turbines that operate steadily for eight hours, sending one-third of their electricity to the grid and two-thirds to batteries. That would yield 8 hours of direct power while the wind is blowing (33% capacity factor)- and let us draw power from the batteries for the next 16 hours, until the wind regularly picks up again. "I love magic," he says. That clearly won't work. We really need at least 48 hours of storage - and thus three times as SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002306-00002 many turbines, under a similar arrangement, but providing more flexibility, to recognize unpredictable wind patterns and the likelihood of two windless days in a row. We're up to 14.4 million 1.8-MW turbines. Want a bigger safety net? To assure against seven windless days? 50 million turbines should do it. But then we're really into the mediocre wind sites. Capacity plummets to 16.5% or so. Perhaps I 00 million turbines will do the trick. Pray that lulls last no more than a week. Or send the army to those intransigent, unpatriotic coastal communities, and forcibly install turbines in their super windy areas. That would also ensure that electricity generation is close to our big urban centers - hence shorter transmission lines, and less cement, steel, copper, et cetera to build the power lines. It's a win-win situation, except for those who have to look at or live next to turbines and transmission lines, of course. How much land are we talking about, to generate 25 billion megawatt-hours of global annual electricity? Assuming top quality wind sites, at 5 kilowatts per acre (average output per land area for any turbine at the windiest locations), onshore turbines operating 24/7/365 would require some 570 million acres. That's 25% of the United States - or 30% of the Lower 48 US states. It's almost all the land in Washington, Oregon, Cal?[ornia,Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona combined! Change the assumptions - change the numbers. To store electricity for windless days, total power generation (and thus turbine numbers and land acreage) begins to skyrocket. For 48 hours of backup, triple the power generation; that's the entire Lower 48. For a full week of backup, add in Canada. Bring electricity to energy-deprived developing countries, and you can at least double all these numbers. Let's not forget the transmission lines and batteries. They also need land (and raw materials). How many batteries? Storing I gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity- to provide power for 48 windless hours for a US city of 700,000 people -would require 480,000 of Tesla's new 100kWh lithium-ion battery packs. Backing up 2.85 TW of 2016 generation for just two windless days would require 1.4 trillion Tesla units! And this assumes the batteries are charged and discharged with 100% efficiency. Just imagine the land, raw materials, mining, manufacturing and energy that would be needed to make all those batteries (and replace them every few years). As energy and technology analyst Mark Mills has noted, all the world's existing lithium battery factories combined manufacture only a tiny fraction of that. I'm sure the world's battery makers would be more than happy to take our hard-earned taxpayer SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002306-00003 and consumer cash to build more factories and make all those batteries - to save us from dangerous climate change that is no longer governed by the sun and other powerful natural forces. Let's get real. It's time to stop playing with pixie dust and renewable energy utopia schemes. Time to open our schools and legislatures to actual thinking about energy, sustainability, climate change and what makes our jobs, health and living standards possible. Time for full-bore studies and legislative hearings on all these issues - in the USA, UK, EU and everywhere else. Sustainability and renewable energy claims are too grounded in ideology, magic and politics. Wind and solar energy forecasts ignore the need to find and mine vast new metal and mineral deposits - and open US lands that are now off limits, unless we want to import all our wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. They assume land use impacts don't really exist if they are in other people's backyards. Worse, too often anyone trying to raise these inconvenient truths is shouted down, silenced, ignored. That has to stop. The stakes are too high for ideology and pixie dust to drive fundamental public policies. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow \.!!....!-'--'-'-'=.,_'---'-""'....e....:..o:=., and author of ="'--'-'-''7,,'~'?..L-~='-'· Green power - Black death and other books on the environment. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002306-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 9/5/2017 2:00:59 PM WSJ: Roger Pielke Jr., "The Hurricane Lull Couldn't Last" Wall Street Journal September 1, 2017 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hurricane-lull-couldnt-last-1504220969 The Hurricane Lull Couldn't Last The U.S. hadn't been hit by a Category 3 or stronger storm since Katrina in 2005. We were overdue. By Roger Pielke Jr. Aug. 31, 2017 7:09 p.m. ET Activists, journalists and scientists have pounced on the still-unfolding disaster in Houston and along the Gulf Coast in an attempt to focus the policy discussion narrowly on climate change. Such single-issue myopia takes precious attention away from policies that could improve our ability to prepare for and respond to disasters. More thoughtful and effective disaster policies are needed because the future will bring many more weather disasters like Hurricane Harvey, with larger impacts than those of the recent past. For many years, those seeking to justify carbon restrictions argued that hurricanes had become more common and intense. That hasn't happened. Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government's latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts and tornadoes, though heat waves and heavy precipitation have become more common. Prior to Harvey, which made landfall as a Category 4 storm, the U.S. had gone a remarkable 12 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002307-00001 years without being hit by a hurricane of Category 3 strength or stronger. Since 1970 the U.S. has only seen four hurricanes of Category 4 or 5 strength. In the previous 4 7 years, the country was struck by 14 such storms. President Obama presided over the lowest rate of hurricane landfalls-0.5 a year-of any president since at least 1900. Eight presidents dealt with more than two a year, but George W. Bush (18 storms) is the only one to have done so since Lyndon B. Johnson. The rest occurred before 1960. Without data to support their wilder claims, climate partisans have now resorted to shouting that every extreme weather event was somehow "made worse" by the emission of greenhouse gases. Earlier this week, -'---'--"'----'--'---"---""--'---'--"----'--''--'--'--'--'"""' columnist David Leonhardt directed researchers "to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather." Turning away from empirical science-or "fussy over-precision"-comes with risks. But whatever one's views on climate, there should be broad agreement today that bigger disasters are coming. Some may blame greenhouse gases while others may believe it to be some sort of karmic retribution. But there is a simpler explanation: Because the world has experienced a remarkable period of good fortune when it comes to catastrophes, we are due. Agreement that more big disasters are on their way should provide opportunity for those otherwise opposed on matters of climate policy to come together and make some smart decisions. Here is where they might start: • Establish disaster review boards. In the aftermath of every plane crash, the federal government convenes experts under the auspices of the National Transportation Safety Board to find out what went wrong and what might be done to prevent it happening again. Meteorologist Michael Smith of Accu Weather (a scientist who decades ago helped identify the "microburst" weather phenomena and its role in plane crashes) has long argued that the nation needs a National Disaster Review Board. After every disaster, it would evaluate what went wrong-and rightand distill lessons. The Trump administration should create such a board in the wake of Harvey. • Encourage resilient growth. Disaster researcher Dennis Mileti has explained that the choices made at the local level-such as where to build-determine how a community will experience disasters. As communities develop, it can be difficult to see how local decisions might affect disasters years or decades down the road. This is particularly the case in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, when the push to "return to normal" might mean simply reinforcing the conditions that led to problems. Local communities need to take better advantage of experts who can explore development choices with an eye toward better preparing for an uncertain future. • Enhance federal capacity. The federal government plays a crucial role in supporting states and local communities to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. When Harvey was out at sea, accurate forecasts from the National Weather Service saved many lives. The National Flood Insurance Program shapes how communities develop, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other agencies provide resources for those whose lives are upturned by natural disasters. President Trump should also appoint a science adviser, whose primary job traditionally has been to coordinate federal science agencies, facilitate budget requests and assess performance. There is no reason to go more than seven months without one. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002307-00002 The hyperpoliticized debate over climate change sees the same tiresome script play out with every extreme event. We need not all agree on the reasons why disasters will assuredly get worse in the coming years in order to come together to make sensible decisions about disaster policies. The time is now. Our good luck appears to have run out. Mr. Pielke is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is the author of "The Climate Fix" (Basic Books, 2011) and "Disasters and Climate Change" (ASUICSPO, 2014). Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002307-00003 To: 1 From: Sent: Subject: Roger Bezdek[rbezdek@misi-net.com]; 'Tim Huelskamp Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Mon 12/11/2017 3:21:25 PM RE: Trump, Heartland, & Red Team The article below is interesting, especially this: "The big question in my mind is to what extent the Heartland Institute has the ear of Scott Pruitt," said Judith Curry, a former professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech whose name has been circulated as a possible red team member. She has said that having Heartland's name affiliated with the effort detracts from its credibility. "I hope this is set up with sensible high-level people who are outside the everyday fray of the debate," she said. Heartland had to cast a wide net to identify scientists, economists, lawyers, and generalists to respond to climate change alarmism. Climate scientists like Curry don't understand or respect disciplines outside their own. They also think, wrongly, that a Red Team would focus only on the science. A team led by Curry is likely to recommend "more research" and a low carbon tax. It would be a catastrophe for Republicans. Joe From: Roger Bezdek [mailto:rbezdek@misi-net.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:09 AM To: Joseph Bast; 'Tim Huelskamp (Gmail)'; Jim Lakely Subject: Trump, Heartland, & Red Team FYI SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002308-00001 WHITE HOUSE Sources: Trump supports Pruitt's plan to question science E&E News reporter Published: Monday, December 11, 2017 President Trump has privately said he supports a public debate to challenge mainstream climate science, according to administration officials. But there's infighting about how it should occur - if at all. The president has told U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during several conversations that he supports Pruitt's plan for a "red-team, blue-team" debate aimed at challenging the prevailing scientific consensus about humans' impact on climate change, a senior administration official told E&E News. Another administration official said that "there is support for the initiative at the highest levels." Pruitt has been pushing the idea of a climate science critique for months, suggesting at one point that it could be a debate that's aired on television. Conservative groups and some Republicans have been eager for the EPA boss to get started; they see the exercise as an avenue to torpedo the so-called endangerment finding that underpins EPA's climate rules. Pressed by a House Republican last week to offer a timeline for the red team, Pruitt said work on the initiative is "ongoing" but that details could be unveiled as early as next month. "We may be able to get there as early as January next year," he testified. But the administration isn't unified behind the idea. "Pruitt has not been given authorization to go ahead with red team, blue team; there are still many issues to be ironed out," another administration official said. It's the latest example of infighting within the Trump administration over high-profile energy and environmental policies. It follows internal clashing earlier this year over whether to exit the Paris climate accord. In that case, Pruitt's camp - the one pushing for withdrawal - came out on top, and Pruitt became the administration's spokesman for the Paris exit. Trump's public statements - dismissing global warming as a "hoax" invented by the Chinese - indicate that he hasn't bought into the consensus views about climate science and suggest he may welcome such a debate. A White House spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment. EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said, "We have nothing to share at this time, and we will share additional details if and when they're available." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002308-00002 Middle ground? Conservative think tanks and influential Republican donors are anxious to get the process underway. They contend that critics of mainstream climate science have been marginalized for years, and they see it as a way to undermine EPA's endangerment finding, which is a scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. Some conservatives have been pressuring Pruitt to overturn that finding, but many acknowledge that he'll face a tough court battle if he takes on the finding directly (Climatewire, July 18). He's already been criticized by some who fear he won't challenge the endangerment finding. Leaving it intact would make it easier for the next administration to roll out new versions of the climate rules the Trump team is working hard to dismantle. The red team forum may present Pruitt with a middle ground - a way to appease conservatives who want to discredit the endangerment finding while avoiding legal fights for now. Bob Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy Corp. who's a key Trump ally on energy issues, said Pruitt told him recently that the red team debate is the first step toward a possible challenge to the endangerment finding. "They're laying groundwork for it; they want to do this red, blue study, debate on science before we get there," Murray said of the endangerment finding. "I said, 'You need to get it done; if you don't get it repealed, you're going to have this climate agenda forever. It needs to be repealed"' (Climatewire, Dec. 1). Myron Ebel!, who led the EPA transition team for the Trump administration, sees the red team as a way to help unravel the endangerment finding. "What we've been pushing is that the EPA should grant our petition to reopen the endangerment finding, and they should then put out an advance notice of proposed rulemaking," said Ebel!, who's the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. EPA should then begin its climate science critique as part of its plan to re-examine the finding, he added. "That would put the exercise in a legal framework that could then be used consequentially." H. Sterling Burnett, a research fellow on environmental policy for the conservative Heartland Institute, said a red team will allow the administration to "make decisions based upon a fuller, more accurate understanding of the state of climate science." Once that's done, he said, "there will be little justification for the endangerment finding, then they can safely withdraw it and defend it in court." The Heartland Institute has been holding closed-door meetings for months to strategize how to push the administration to move ahead with the red team. Heartland also sent lists of recommendations to EPA for potential members of the red team, according to documents obtained by the Climate Investigations Center and shared with E&E News (Climatewire, Oct. 26). 'Self-inflicted wound' SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002308-00003 Despite the support from conservative circles, the exercise presents some political perils, and some say the administration and Pruitt would be wise to steer clear. "I think that there are people in the White House who think we've got a lot of stuff we've got to do, and in the regulatory reform initiatives that we are advancing, we in the White House take incoming fire all the time," said an energy industry lawyer. "In the case of red team, blue team, we'll be taking incoming fire all right, but it'll be completely voluntary. It'll be like a self-inflicted wound." One line of attack the administration is already facing is that the operation aims to treat the two sides of the debate as equal. That would give the minority of researchers who question mainstream science a bigger platform. There are also outstanding questions of who participates and how it would be run. Pruitt was rumored to be considering Steven Koon in, a former Obama administration energy official, to lead the red team effort. Koon in said in an August interview that he'd consider it if certain conditions were met. His participation would allow Republicans to claim bipartisan support. Koonin said in August that he's driven by science, not politics. "I've got no dog in the fight about whether [climate change] is the greatest catastrophe that's facing the planet or this is a nothing burger," he said. "This is something that is a national issue, and I feel the scientific community has an obligation to see that this is accurately portrayed" (Climatewire, Aug. 7). Some critics of mainstream climate science have said they'll only participate if they see it as a serious effort with researchers they deem credible. "The big question in my mind is to what extent the Heartland Institute has the ear of Scott Pruitt," said Judith Curry, a former professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech whose name has been circulated as a possible red team member. She has said that having Heartland's name affiliated with the effort detracts from its credibility. "I hope this is set up with sensible high-level people who are outside the everyday fray of the debate," she said. There's also uncertainty about a possible "blue team" that would defend the mainstream science. Scientists may refuse to participate, arguing that it's an insincere effort or a waste of time. And the Trump administration may not want those optics. The administration could also risk unflattering media coverage from the debate itself. Inflammatory assertions from either side of the debate would undoubtedly generate a flurry of news coverage, which could exacerbate criticisms that the administration isn't doing enough about climate change or generate intense scrutiny of the researchers picked for the red team. Even some who welcome the debate say it comes with pitfalls. "It's a very complicated thing, and it has to be gotten right or it won't have credibility and it won't produce a good product," said Ebel I. He doesn't think EPA is the correct agency to lead the charge, he said, suggesting instead that it be situated within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where the president's top SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002308-00004 science adviser typically works. But Trump hasn't nominated a leader for his science shop yet. Pruitt, meanwhile, appears eager to get started. "It's something we hope to do," he told lawmakers last week. "That would be a process where we would focus on objective, transparent, real-time review of questions and answers around the issue of CO2." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002308-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 12/10/2017 2:22:06 AM Frank Buckley's new book, "The Republic of Virtue" Frank Buckley is a long-time Heartland policy advisor, a brilliant writer and legal thinker, and a good friend. He has a new book out, "The Republic of Virtue," and just sent me (and others) the message below and asks that we forward it to friends. Please take a moment to read it, order a copy of his book, and be prepared to be amazed. Joe From: Francis Buckley [mailto:fbuckley@gmu.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2017 8:39 AM To: Francis Buckley Cc: Francis Buckley Subject: Can you take a look a my new book? I need a favor from you. Can you go on Amazon.com or FncounterBooks.com and buy my new book? The Republic of Virtue is out this week. It's about how the Framers of our Constitution wanted more than anything a corruption-free government, why it's not turned out that way, and what we can do about it. Listen to this interview, which introduces the book. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002309-00001 When the Framers looked for a model for their Constitution, the British version beckoned. There were two problems, however. First, we weren't going to have a king (even if Obama seemed to think otherwise). And second, we didn't want British-style corruption, where the king was able to gather supporters in parliament with promises of patronage. That's why, at crucial moments during the Framers' debates, it was the fear of corruption that won the day. And that's also why, when you look closely at the Constitution, it's best understood as an anti-corruption covenant. Problem is, it didn't tum out that way. Congress was supposed to check the president's powers and keep him honest, but instead the separation of powers has immunized the president from attack, and that's a recipe for corruption. The 2016 election was so very close. Consider where we'd have been had Hillary Clinton won, or if someone like her ever won in the future. That's one reason why, on cross-country measures of corruption, we don't fare very well. Federalism was also supposed to keep us honest. If you're in a corrupt state, you can move to an honest one. That still works, but much less so since power shifted from the states to the federal government. You can escape a corrupt Louisiana and move to Texas, but it's a little harder to escape from a corrupt federal government. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002309-00002 In one respect, we'd be less corrupt if power shifted from the states to the federal government. Right now, state courts in places like Mississippi routinely ding out-of-state civil defendants in order to benefit in-state trial lawyers. In all such cases, the out-of-state defendant should be able to move the case into federal court. Finally, the folks who tell us they worry about corruption are mostly partisan voices who simply want to shut down Republican money. Our present campaign finance laws are a mess. They're a net with the curious feature that the big fish sail through while the small fish get caught. We don't want to make the laws tougher. We'd be better off getting rid of all of them. They're just a trap for the unwary. What we should be doing, very narrowly, is going after the lobbyists who contribute to Congressional campaigns, or who offer lucrative jobs to sitting Congressmen and senior staffers. That's made Congress a farm team for K Street. Let's put an end to that. If you can forward this email to all your friends and colleagues I'd greatly appreciate it. Encounter Books has created a friends and family discount code for a total of 3 5% off the list price (better than Amazon's price). Just apply the coupon VIRTUE in the shopping cart. · to buy it. I'm also more than willing to speak and do media events about the book. Thanks! Frank Buckley SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002309-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 12/8/2017 11 :04:22 PM Leyland & Harris commentary: End the 'war on coal' Great stuff This is where the rubber hits the road, my friends. We can't say and write this often enough. Joe From: Paul Driessen [mailto:i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy : Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 4:44 PM To: 'Paul Driessen' Subject: Leyland & Harris commentary: End the 'war on coal' One lives in New Zealand, the other in Canada. But climate and energy experts Bryan Leyland and Tom Harris perfectly understand the importance of coal for the United States and other modem industrialized societies, the minimal to nonexistent role of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in climate change, and the callous indifference that radical anti-fossil fuel environmentalists have toward energy-deprived, impoverished families around the world. Their observations are important reminders of the vital role this much-vilified fuel has played ... and continues to play ... in lifting billions out of poverty, disease and premature death. As they say, it is time to end the War on Coal. Thank you for posting their commentary, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues. Best regards, Paul End the 'war on coal' Far from being a threat, coal continues to bring health, welfare and prosperity to billions Bryan Leyland and Tom Harris At the recent Environmental Protection Agency public hearing in Charleston, West Virginia, on withdrawing the "Clean Power Plan," anti-coal activists were out in force: the Climate Justice Alliance, Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, Natural Resource SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002310-00001 Defense Council and many others. The New York Times reported that several groups also met at the University of Charleston, to discuss the purported "environmental, health and climate benefits of reducing coal consumption." They apparently do not understand that the abundant, low-cost energy provided by coal laid the foundations of the industrial revolution and modern society. It provided power for trains that transported raw materials and factories that turned them into vital products. In the twentieth century coal-fired power stations provided the reliable, inexpensive electricity that is the lifeblood of modern economies. It still does today. The world has vast coal reserves. The USA alone still has a 380-year supply at current usage rates. It could be burned in modern clean power plants. Sadly, in the Western world, radical environmentalists are working to shut down existing coal-fired stations, and prevent new ones from being built. Meanwhile, hundreds of new coal-fired stations are being built annually in the rest of the world, to power expanding economies and bring improved health, welfare and prosperity to billions of people who until recently had no access to electricity. Developing countries must build new coal-fired stations to provide their poverty-stricken populations with reliable low-cost electricity. But environmentalists have convinced international development banks that coal is evil and persuaded the banks to squander vast sums on expensive wind and solar power that keeps a few lights burning a few hours a day. For commercial and industrial development, hospitals, schools and families, developing nations need abundant, continuous, low-cost electricity. In many cases, coal is by far the best option. So why is coal vilified? It is because of the mistaken belief that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing dangerous global warming. Indeed, coal stations are a major source of CO2 emissions. However, this climate change connection rests entirely on the output of computer models that are programmed to predict warming if CO2 increases. The models assume what they are supposed to prove! Speaking at the recent America First Energy Conference in Houston, Texas, University of Delaware climatology professor Dr. David Legates showed that climate models consistently predict far greater temperature rises than are actually observed: a full degree Fahrenheit difference by 2017. Models are "tuned" to give the results desired for political purposes, he explained. "This is not science!" SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002310-00002 Yet, the benefits of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide - the only gas controlled by the Clean Power Plan - are clear. CO2 is essential for plant growth. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change expert Dr. Craig ldso told the Houston audience, "The entire terrestrial biosphere is reaping incredible benefits from an approximately 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution." If it were true that man-made CO2caused dangerous global warming, the best option would be nuclear power that is proven, safe and environmentally friendly. But environmental extremists claim that nuclear power is too dangerous, even though the only recorded deaths from nuclear power generation occurred at the obsolete and maloperated Chernobyl station in Ukraine. The next best option is natural gas. This has been spectacularly successful in the United States, and hydraulic fracturing is producing abundant supplies of this vital fuel. Yet, despite its excellent safety record, activists violently oppose fracking. Instead, they push wind and solar power that exist only because they are heavily subsidized, and their health and environmental impacts are ignored. The huge expansion of wind and solar power has massively increased electricity costs because of subsidies, mandated purchases and the high cost of providing backup power whenever the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Reliability is also a problem, especially with wind power. For example, extensive blackouts occurred recently in South Australia when their wind power went offline in a gale and so overloaded the backup supply that it also shut down. Few people understand that the war against coal is actually a war against people and a cleaner environment. Modern highly efficient coal-fired power plants with stack gas cleanup - the kind that can be built all over the world - are as clean as they can be. Their emissions consist of water, CO2and nitrogen. The stack gas cleanup removes virtually all the real pollutants, especially sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides. The only pollution left behind is coal ash, which freezes pollutants in its glassy matrix and can be stored safely in disposal facilities. The USA is not building modern coal-fired power plants because EPA regulations set allowable CO2 emissions per megawatt of electricity far below what can be achieved using the best technology. If it had been set slightly higher - or better still, if no limit had been imposed on CO2 emissions - the United States would be still leading the world in building modern, clean, efficient, economical coal-fired stations. That's exactly what Europe, China, India and dozens of other countries are doing. It's clearly high time to end the war on coal! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002310-00003 Bryan Leyland is an Auckland, New Zealand-based consulting engineer and the founding secretary and energy issues adviser for the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Tom Harris is the ICSC's executive director. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002310-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 12/7/2017 9:23:44 PM Heartland Institute Statement on ALEC Endangerment Finding Resolution This will be released very soon. Joe From: Billy Aouste Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 3:09 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Heartland Institute Statement on ALEC Endangerment Finding Resolution THE E RTLAND INSTITUTE HEARTLAND.ORG Heartland Institute Statement on ALEC Endangerment Finding Resolution ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (December 7, 2017)- Yesterday, a task force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) debated a resolution calling for a review of the Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 "Endangerment Finding." After a lively debate and straw vote, the sponsor of the resolution, Rep. John Piscopo (R-CT), along with Bette Grande, a research fellow for The Heartland Institute who helped draft the resolution, withdrew it for now, saying "the final decision on this issue will be made by the Trump Administration." Background links: Resolution to review the Endangerment Finding [click here] Coalition letter in favor of the resolution [click here] Letter withdrawing the resolution [click here] Rep. Piscopo and Ms. Grande agreed to withdraw the resolution after corporate members of ALEC, led by ExxonMobil and Edison Electric Institute (EEI), packed the meeting room with lobbyists and allies and indicated they would vote against the resolution. Heartland's discussions with state legislators on the task force, as well as a straw vote of elected officials attending the committee meeting, showed a majority of them supported the resolution. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002311-00001 The following statement from Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D., president of The Heartland Institute- may be used for attribution. For more comments or to book Dr. Huelskamp on your radio or television program, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakcly@heartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 312/731-9364. "This result is disappointing, but not surprising. Big corporations like ExxonMobil and trade groups like EEI have long been members of the discredited and anti-energy global warming movement. They've put their profits and 'green' virtue signaling above sound science and the interests of their customers. "Heartland thanks Rep. Piscopo for taking the lead on this important issue, and thanks ALEC for allowing this debate to take place. The debate will continue both inside ALEC, where a majority of legislative members and policy advisors agree that the Endangerment Finding ought to be reviewed, as well as outside the organization. We will continue to work with scientists, economists, policy experts, and allies at ALEC to strengthen the case for rescinding the Endangerment Finding. "This discussion at ALEC changes nothing at the federal level, where action to repeal the Endangerment Finding will take place. President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have rejected unscientific alarmism, embraced sound science, and are implementing pro-energy, pro-America policies. Rescinding the Endangerment Finding is the logical and necessary next step. We are optimistic that the self-serving regulatory capture and green preening of big corporations like ExxonMobil may delay but will not prevent that step." Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D, President, The Heartland Institute thuclskamp@heartland.org 312/377-4000 Dr. Huelskamp represented Kansas' 1st District in the House of Representatives from 2011 to 2017. The Heartland Institute is a 33-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002311-00002 To: From: Sent: Subject: Lennie Jarratt[LJarratt@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Thur 12/7/2017 5:15:55 PM Global warming speaker near Ashville, NC? If you are interested in taking this speaking opportunity, please reply to Lennie Jarratt. Joe From: Lennie Jarratt Sent: Thursday, December 07, 201711:13 AM To: Sam Karnick; Jim Lakely; Joseph Bast; Tim Huelskamp Subject: Global Warming Policy Advisor Near Ashville, NC A professor at UNC Ashville is interested in having a speaker for his course, Communicating Climate Change. He is using WSDAGW as a resource for his 16 students. Do any of you have a recommendation for someone who could speak on properly messaging global warming? The professor is not going to be able to pay for a speaker, so we would be paying for this. Is there someone within driving distance? Lennie The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone: 312/377-4000 Cell: 84 7/302-3985 Fax: 312-277-4122 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002312-00001 E-mail: ljarratt@hcartland.org @LennicJarratt @SchoolRefonn @Heartlandlnst Support Heartland today! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002312-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 12/7/2017 4:27:51 PM ALEC's corporate members veto resolution calling for review of the Endangerment Finding FYI Heartlandwill release a statementabout what happenedat ALEC yesterdaylater today. This was not unexpected.Corporaterent-seekers- especiallyExxon and EEi - and some bedwetters- especiallyPfizer and UPS -- and a few lackeys(e.g., R Street Institute)over-ruledALEC's legislatormembers. By withdrawingthe resolution,we live to fight anotherday. Joe ALEC abandons measure against endangerment finding Published: Thursday, December 7, 2017 NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative policy group known for crafting model bills, will not vote on a draft resolution that called for reviewing the endangerment finding. Connecticut state Rep. John Piscopo (R) withdrew his measure after members at a meeting of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture subcommittees signaled disapproval. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002313-00001 "The final decision on this issue will be made by the Trump Administration. So, at this time, we respectfully withdraw the resolution," Piscopo and Bette Grande, with the Heartland Institute, said in an email to members of the task force obtained by E&E News. Sources said an overwhelming majority of private-sector members - corporations, think tanks and other nongovernmental organizations - were wary of the proposal, while a slim majority of lawmakers opposed it. The move effectively tables the discussion over the endangerment finding, the anthology of scientific evidence that says greenhouse gas emissions harm human health and is the basis for federal climate regulation. The draft measure had become a flashpoint for ALEC members. Many, including those in the business community, wanted to avoid the appearance of wading into an argument about climate science. Some hard-line conservatives, however, said ALEC was a natural forum to push for challenging the endangerment finding, noting that ending climate regulation would be more difficult if the finding remains in place. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002313-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Tue 10/31/2017 9:27:51 PM Jay Lehr in Oklahoma City Joe From: Jay Lehr [mailto:[ Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 2:59 PM To: Tim Huelskamp; Joseph Bast; Sam Karnick (External); Diane Bast; H. Sterling Burnett; Isaac Orr; John Nothdurft; Veronica Harrison; Nikki Comerford Cc: William Happer; Rich Tiller; Teresa Mull; Jesse Hathaway Subject: Today in Oklahoma City Today I spoke to a hundred members of an Insurance CO-OP in Oklahoma City on a variety of agricultural topics as well as energy, foreign Policy and economics. It was in an arena style room with tables and executive chairs rising from the stage high up in the room. It always makes me better because I am on a stage looking up. The highlight of the talk was my carbon dioxide discusssioon with my new carbon dioxide meter which I will use in Houston at the energy conference. A lecture with a scientific demonstration will not be easily forgotten. I really had the audience on the edge of their seats. The CO2 meter began a little over 700 when they entered the hall and 90 minutes later exceeded 1100. That brought forth many easily answered questions which Will Happer has schooled me on. Everyone left with our book Why Scientists Disagree, the current issue of ECN and my card all of which Nikki and Roy supplied me with. It was fun being in Scott Pruitt's back yard and talking about the good things he is doing at EPA. It was a studious and intense group who I think grasped everything I was saying. The other talks all on insurance were excellent too. I learned a lot about cyber security which is now a policy they sell. They knew that most of the ransomeware hackers appear to be in North Korea, Singapore and Russia, not kids in their basements in the U.S. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002314-00001 Jay SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: & Integrity Joseph Bast Tue 10/31/2017 6:45:58 PM Awesome: Administrator Pruitt Issues Directive to Ensure Independence, Geographic Diversity in EPA Science Committees Joe From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmai119.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:00 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: [***POSSIBLE_SPAM*** Score/Req: 06.20/6] Administrator Pruitt Issues Directive to Ensure Independence, Geographic Diversity & Integrity in EPA Science Committees Administrator Pruitt Issues Directive to Ensure Independence, Geographic Diversity & Integrity in EPA Science Committees WASHINGTON (October 31, 2017)- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a new directive today to ensure that any advisors serving on an EPA Federal Advisory Committee (FAG) are independent and free from any real, apparent, or potential interference with their ability to objectively serve as a committee member. "Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn't be political science," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. "From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the Agency." The directive explains that: members shall be independent from EPA, which shall include a requirement that no member of any of EPA's federal advisory committees be currently in receipt of EPA grants, either as principal investigator or co-investigator, or in a position that otherwise would reap substantial direct benefit from an EPA grant. This principle would not apply to state, tribal or local government agency recipients of EPA grants. An accompanying memorandum issued by EPA Administrator Pruitt explains the directives to improve the independence and integrity of EPA's FACs in ways that advance the Agency's mission. According to EPA calculations, in just the last three years, members of three of EPA's 22 FACs the Science Advisory Board (SAS), Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) - received upwards of $77 million in direct EPA grant funding while concurrently serving on these committees. Today, Administrator Pruitt also announced his plan to appoint new leadership and new members to SAS, CASAC and BOSC. In the spirit of cooperative federalism, Administrator Pruitt intends to appoint members that will significantly increase geographic diversity and state, tribal, and local government participation on the committees. A list of members will be posted in coming days. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002315-00001 The directive focuses on the importance of the following areas pertaining to EPA FACs: 1. Strengthen Member Independence: Members shall be independent from EPA, which shall include a requirement that no member of an EPA federal advisory committee be currently in receipt of EPA grants, either as principal investigator or co-investigator, or in a position that otherwise would reap substantial direct benefit from an EPA grant. This principle shall not apply to state, tribal or local government agency recipients of EPA grants. 2. Increase State, Tribal and Local Government Participation: In the spirit of cooperative federalism and recognition of the unique experience of state, tribal and local government officials, committee balance should reflect prominent participation from state, tribal and local governments. Such participation should be appropriate for the committee's purpose and function. 3. Enhance Geographic Diversity: Given the range of environmental and public health considerations across the country, membership should be balanced with individuals from different states and EPA regions. Emphasis should be given to individuals from historically unrepresented or underrepresented states and regions. 4. Promote Fresh Perspectives: To encourage and promote the inclusion of new candidates with fresh perspectives and to avoid prolonged and continuous service, membership should be rotated regularly. "Strengthening independence from EPA, increasing state, tribal and local government participation, and adding geographic diversity and fresh perspectives will improve the integrity of EPA's scientific advisory committees," said EPA Administrator Pruitt. To read the full directive please visit To read the full memo please visit U.S. Environmental Proted1on Jl,gency 1200 Pennsylvania Avemue Northwest Washington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002315-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 9/4/2017 6:14:16 PM Attacks on Jim Bridensteine for NASA head Heartland GW team: I'm sure the Trump administration would appreciate any writing in defense of his nomination of Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine to head NASA, from crap like this: h ://www.n dail news.com/news/ olitics/stasi-hunicane-trum nasa-article-1.3464200 -ta s-climate-chan e-denier- Still waiting for this page to come down: h s://climate. nasa. 0 ov/scientific-consensus/ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals I show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. . References 1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on humancaused global warming_'' Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI: l 0.1088/1748-9326/l l/4/048002 Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or humancaused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97 .1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW." J. Cook, et al, " uanti in the consensus on anthro o "'enic lobal wannin in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002316-00001 2013); DOI: l 0.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus." W.R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009E0030002. N. Oreskes, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science. l l 03618. Chapter 1 of Why ,~'dentists Disag ee about Global Warming systematically demolishes every one of these sources. Why is it still up? Joe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002316-00002 From: Joseph Bast Mon 9/4/2017 6:03:41 PM Investors Business Daily: No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation Sent: Subject: Outstanding piece. Joe http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/no-michael-mann-global-warming-didnt-causehurricane-harveys-devastation/ No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation • 8/31/2017 Global Warming: When a controversial climatologist claims Hurricane Harvey's brntal downpour that devastated Houston is a result of global warming, it warrants examining the claim. We have, and it appears baseless. But that won't stop climate-change extremists from making that claim again in the future. First, a little background. Penn State meteorology professor Michael Mann has gained dubious renown for something no scientist desires: fiddling with data, and getting caught. In this case, it was temperature data. Mann's famous "hockey stick" rendition of temperature and climate changes makes it appear as if temperatures began rising sharply in the 19th century as carbon dioxide from the Industrial Revolution began to build up, and then soared uncontrollably in recent years to near-record highs SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002317-00001 for the last millennium. Mann used proxy data for much of his chart, which, because of its distinctive shape, was soon called the hockey stick. It became the symbol of "science" proving that global warming was now disastrously heating our planet. And it was the centerpiece of the United Nations' efforts to propagandize on behalf of making the developed world poorer to temper the effects of global warming. The U.N.'s proposals would require a massive decline in the West's standard of living, and hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes. The only problem is, according to critics, Mann's data were manipulated in such a way as to make them incorrect. Ironically, Mann published his hockey-stick paper in 1998, after which satellite temperature data - the most complete and accurate weather data we have - show virtually no statistically significant change in global temperatures. Worse still, Canadian statisticians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick discovered that Mann's statistical manipulations of the raw data were mathematically questionable at best and dishonest at worst. When the two force-fed Mann's own statistical formulas with random data, they generated ... a hockey stick. So, in essence, the climate books were cooked to make global warming seem extreme, no matter what data were used. "Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster child of the global-warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics," science writer Richard Muller noted in the 2004 issue of the MIT Review on the controversy. "How could it happen?" It could happen because the giant global-warming industry - made up of government bureaucrats, professors, scientists, researchers and think-tank fellows, and allied as it is to the U.N.'s socialist agenda - depends on government grants and aid to "prove" global warming is a threat. This year, according to a Daily Caller Foundation estimate, the U.S. federal government alone will spend some $27 billion on climate change, much of it on research. Any scientist whose work doesn't slavishly follow the strict theology of the climate-change religion has little chance of getting his or her research funded by the U.S. government, whose bureaucracy has every reason to want to see global warming as a threat. And now, Mann is at it again. Writing in the leftist British newspaper The Guardian, under the alarming headline "It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly," Mann had this to say: "Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge." Interesting observation, but not a "fact" at all, as he suggests, but rather a hotly disputed opinion. Moreover, it's cherry-picking of the worst sort: Wait for a disaster to happen, and then say, in effect, "Global warming. I told you so." "This is an example of what will be a relentless tirade of statements. Say nothing, make no SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002317 -00002 forecast you can actually be held accountable for, then come out after and grab headlines with stuff like this," wrote Joe Bastardi, the chief forecaster of Weather Bell Analytics, a weather consultancy and forecasting firm. Yet, ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2004, climate-change advocates have warned that hurricanes and storms would be far worse as a result of global warming. It was inevitable, we were told. But the fact is, since 2010, the number of severe, category 4 hurricanes has declined sharply. Moreover, those who follow hurricanes and tropical storms for a living suggest global warming isn't the cause. CNN Newsroom host John Berman asked former National Hurricane Center Director Bill Read point-blank whether climate change had affected the intensity of Hurricane Harvey. Read said he "probably wouldn't attribute (global warming to) what we're looking at here. This is not an uncommon occurrence to see storms grow and intensify rapidly in the western Gulf of Mexico. That is, as long as we've been tracking them, that has occurred." In short, it's part of a long-term weather pattern - not climate change. And a look at the number of hurricanes by decade shows conclusively that the number and severity of hurricanes have mostly declined in recent decades, not risen. "There is no reason to be debating Harvey and climate change in the context of an unfolding disaster, other than political opportunism and attention-seeking," said climate scientist and University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke. "It's not a good look for scientists or journalists who are promoting this issue." Pielke destroys the notion that global wanning has made hurricanes or tropical storms worse by noting that from 1926 to 1969, a period of 44 years, there were 14 category 4 hurricanes that made landfall. From 1970 to 2017, or 4 7 years, there have been just four. If anything, if you were a global warming advocate and being honest, you'd have to say that higher temperatures have caused the number of severe hurricanes hitting the U.S. to decline by 70%. All of the news shows, newspapers, news websites and magazines will be peddling the same shamanistic nonsense: Global warming is to blame for everything nasty in the natural world, but especially for the brutal hurricanes that occasionally rip into our coast. But the facts show it just ain't true. Joe Joseph Bast SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002317 -00003 Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002317 -00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 3/15/2018 10:23:17 PM More winning: Lawrence Kudlow to become Trump's White House Economic Adviser Another AGW skeptic joins the White House. Joe From: The White House [mailto:info@mail.whitehouse.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:17 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Lawrence Kudlow to become Trump's White House Economic Adviser Lawrence Kudlow to become Trump's White House Economic Adviser "Lawrence Kudlow, a conservative economic commentator whose career included jobs in the White House, Wall Street, radio and business television, will become one of President Donald Trump's top economic advisers as director of the National Economic Council," Nick Timiraos writes in The Wall Street Journal. "Mr. Kudlow was a strong supporter of tax cuts and deregulation championed by Mr. Trump," Timiraos adds. Seema Verma write that "health innovation is accelerating at a striking pace. In the past year, we have seen advances in treatments that could not have been imagined a generation ago." Kushner and Administrator Verma note that "the President has been clear through executive order that his administration is committed to putting patients in control of their health care, so that they may drive competition and better value." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002318-00001 "Sen. John Barrasso said Thursday that he is confident in CIA Director Mike Pompeo and believes he will be confirmed as secretary of state," Sally Persons reports in The Washington Times. "He understands clearly, along with [the] president, that to put America first means economically, means militarily, as well as politically," the Wyoming Republican explained on Fox News. "But if we want safety and security at home, we want a world that is peaceful and stable." Morgan Chalfant writes in The Hill that Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, President Trump's pick to lead the National Security Agency, "boasts a breadth of experience in intelligence operations." Chalfant notes that "the Senate is expected to confirm Nakasone as NSA director, a job that will also make him head of U.S. Cyber Command, the Pentagon's burgeoning cyber warfare unit." Privacy Policy I Contact the White House I Unsubscnbe. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002318-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 3/15/2018 10:12:33 PM Ron Rotunda, RIP Friends, It is with a heavy heart that I report the passing of Prof. Ronald Rotunda, the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and a long-time policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. Ron was one of the most distinguished legal scholars in the United States, as you can see by a quick review of his bio here: https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/ronald-d-rotunda On September 14, 2016, Ron testified before the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology in defense of global warming skeptics who were being attacked by NY State AG Eric T. Schneiderman and 16 other attorneys general (15 Democrats and one socialist). His testimony, titled "Affirming Congress' Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas," can be found here: https://www.heartland.org/ templateassets/documents/EDITED Rotunda TestimonyPDF.pdf His writings for us began with a policy study on term limits way back in 1997: https://www. heartland.erg/ template-assets/documents/publications/5522. pdf SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002319-00001 You can read other essays and comments by Ron here: https://www.heartland.org/policybot/index. htm l?q=Ronald%20Rotunda&page=2&view= 1O#results A distinguished and influential voice in debates on a wide range of topics, he will be sorely missed. Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002319-00002 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 To: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Fri 9/1/2017 2:55:00 PM Bjorn Lomborg on hurricanes Good piece by Lomborg on his Facebook page: h s ://www. face book. com/b ·oml ombor 0 A lot of people want to claim that hurricane Harvey is caused by climate change. But for all categories of US landfalling hurricanes, there are *fewer* not more hurricanes today than in the past. Here you see the trends since 1878 in batches of two decades (there are too few hurricanes to make one decade meaningful). 2017 contains all the hurricanes from 1998-2017. 1997 contains all the hurricanes from 1978-1997 etc. LandfallingUShurricanesper two decades ----. 1897 1917 Ill 1937 . - ··-19S7 1977 1997 2017 The trend for the strongest hurricanes (cat 4+) is downwards. The trend for major hurricanes (cat 3+) is downwards. The trend for hurricanes cat 2+ is downwards. And the trend for all hurricanes is downwards. It is likely that global warming will, in the long run, create somewhat stronger, but fewer hurricanes, although we can't see this yet in the data. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002320-00001 MOREOVER, if you want to help future victims of future hurricane Harveys, tackling climate change is the most expensive way to help the least. Climate affects hurricanes marginally, and our climate policies affect climate marginally. Even policies like Paris, which will cost $1+ trillion a year, will do trivially little to help future victims. INSTEAD, we should focus on: better infrastructure, porous surfaces, and drainage (get rid of water faster), levees and dams (to avoid flooding), better building codes (creating safer houses), better zoning (don't build in flood plains or on the coast, where the risk is the highest) and dropping subsidies for insurance (which encourages building in high-risk areas). This would help much more, much faster, much cheaper. This does not mean we shouldn't fix climate in the long run, through higher investment in green R&D. But it means that using Harvey to argue for demonstrating climate impacts runs against the evidence across the past 140 years. And using Harvey to advocate for climate policies first is simply bad policy advice. It will waste more money while helping much less. Data: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.htm1 and 2017 from htt s://en.wiki edia.or wiki/2017 Atlantic hunicanc season Least-square trendlines added Willie Soon adds, The "energetics" issues are easily debunked using this quote from Clifford Mass ... h s://www.cbsncws.com/ncws/climatc-chan scicntist-says/ e-harve -should-serve-as-a-wamin -climatc- University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass said climate change is simply not SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002320-00002 powerful enough to create off-the-chart events like Harvey's rainfall. "You really can't pin global warming on something this extreme. It has to be natural variability," Mass said. "It may juice it up slightly but not create this phenomenal anomaly." Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002320-00003 To: From: Sent: Subject: Jim Lakely[JLakely@heartland.org] Joseph Bast Fri 9/1/2017 2:35:15 PM Pope Francis: "Listen to the Cry of the Earth" Argh. Good hook for op-eds here, too. Can you believe the opening sentence? "Pope Francis, who has a strong belief in the science of climate change ... " Maybe if he understood science (not "the science," you dummy), he wouldn't have to believe (to accept without questioning, without proof) what some of its worst distorters say it is. This is the same guy who thinks our greening earth is "an immense pile of filth." Joe https://www.ecowatch.com/pope-francis-climate-change-2479496671.html Lorraine Chow Aug. 30, 2017 Pope Francis to World Leaders: 'Listen to the Cry of the Earth' Pope Francis, who has a strong belief in the science of climate change, called upon world leaders on Wednesday to "listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, who suffer most because of the unbalanced ecology." Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew I, the head of the Orthodox Christian Church, will SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002321-00001 issue a joint message to commemorate the annual "World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation" on Friday, the Associated Press reported. In 2015, the Pope designated Sept. 1 as "a precious opportunity to renew our personal participation in this vocation as custodians of creation," framing the preservation of the environment as a moral responsibility. Similarly, Bartholomew-who Laudato Si-once said: backed Francis' 2015 encyclical on the environment, "There has never been so much turmoil on our planet, but there has never been greater opportunity for communication, cooperation and dialogue. Basic human rights such as access to water, clean air and sufficient food should be available to everyone without distinction or discrimination. We are convinced that we cannot separate our concern for human dignity, human rights or social justice from the concern for ecological preservation and sustainability." Pope Francis has long pressed for strong climate action. In May, during their meeting at the Vatican, the pontiff gifted President Trump a copy of the climate encyclical right as POTUS considered whether the U.S. should exit from the Paris climate agreement. Trump, a notorious climate skeptic who does not agree with Francis about the global phenomenon, apparently didn't take the Pope's message to heart-he controversially withdrew the U.S. from the Paris accord just a month later. Joe Joseph Bast Chief ExecutiveOfficer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002321-00002 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002321-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 9/1/2017 2:14:56 PM Can anyone reply to today's Financial Times? See attached. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002322-00001 ?g $5 ?33 at? x33 9 @ism SELC EPA, N0. 3:18-Cv-18 (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-O10058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sat 3/3/2018 8:23:59 PM U.S. Senate Report: Russia is funding enviro groups to lie about fossil fuels and climate change This ought to be front-page news in every daily newspaper in America: https://science.housc.gov/sitcs/rcpublicans.science.housc.gov/filcs/documcnts/SST%20Staff%20Report%20%20Russian%20Attcmpts%20to%20Influcnce%20U.S.%20Domestic%20Encrgy%20Markcts%20by%20Exploi Many of us have been saying for years that communists are major supporters of left-wing environmental groups, and liberal reporters are being used as "useful idiots" to advance the Kremlin's agenda. Here is proof we were right all along. Would there even be an environmental movement without the support of communists? And tell me again why "Earth Day" is celebrated on Lenin's birthday ... Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002325-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002325-00002 From: Joseph Bast Fri 3/2/2018 4:28:03 PM FW: Kill Climate Deniers: Playwright takes on Andrew Bolt, climate change sceptics and Breitbart News Sent: Subject: HIT Willie Soon. I'm sure this play is very funny. Except... The Heartland lnstitute's address is public information and other than cameras and alarms, it has little security. In two clicks any wacknut can find my home address (and yours), and with four more clicks he can probably figure out where our moms live. Would this playwright feel any responsibility or regret if someone decided to kill a prominent climate denier for real, or maybe just threaten his elderly mom? Rather than shoot up your old high school, why not shoot up a conservative or libertarian think tank? That wouldn't be funny at all, would it? Joe h ://www.abc.nct.au/ncws/2018-03-01/kill-climatc-denicrsbreitbart/94 787 48 la wri ht-takcs-on-bolt- Kill Climate Deniers: Playwright takes on Andrew Bolt, climate change sceptics and Breitbart News By Hannah Reich for The Hub on Stage Updated Thu at 3.14am PHOTO: Actor Eden Falk as Boardman) la ( ht David Finni an in Kill Climate Deniers. Su lied: Griffin Theatre Com an /Brett Four years after backlash shut down the original staging of the play, David Finnigan's Kill Climate Deniers has now opened in Sydney. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002326-00001 In 2014, Finnigan was commissioned by Canberra's Aspen Island Theatre Company to write a play that explored climate change and Australian politics. He called the play Kill Climate Deniers, and was given a $19,000 grant from the ACT Government to develop it. A small production from a relatively unknown playwright, it might've ended in a small run with a small audience. But then Andrew Bolt caught wind of it. The Herald Sun columnist was not impressed: "What sane government donates to a project urging others to kill fellow citizens, even as a "joke"?" Others shared Bolt's concerns, including climate change sceptics and the ACT Opposition arts spokesman. Even right-wing US website Breitbart News Network criticised the funding of the play. Concerned about how the on line controversy might escalate, Finnigan and his collaborators decided to cancel the planned performance of Kill Climate Deniers. Engaging with climate deniers Finnigan said that despite the name, his play is not a violent call to arms but rather "a pretty joyful comedy". "It's a high-octane action adventure thriller set in Parliament House," he said. The Parliament House of Finnigan's play, however, has been invaded by eco-terrorists. They've taken everyone hostage while demanding that the government stop climate change. Finnigan, who based his 2012 Churchill Fellowship on studying the intersection between science and the performing arts, creates theatre in collaboration with climate and systems scientists. Scientists were informally involved in the development of this play ensuring that "all the science was double and triple fact-checked," he said. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002326-00002 PHOTO: Playwright David Finnigan has woven all the criticism of his play straight back into it. (ABC RN: Patrick Carey) The backlash to Finnigan's original play has shaped the work in unexpected ways, leading him to engage directly with the climate deniers who criticised his play's title. "I think his [Andrew Bolt's] followers and the people that very actively wrote to me following his attacks are a really interesting group that deserve engaging with," Finnigan said. "I genuinely think they [climate deniers] understand perhaps better than myself and a lot of left-leaning liberals the consequences of climate science. And because they understand the consequences, they can't accept the science. "These deniers see climate change as the leading edge of this massive effort to restructure society with a socialist frame. "I think they've got a really good handle on how climate change is going to affect every facet of society in the next 50 years." His reworked play includes quotes from the sceptics, the playwright himself, as well as a version of Bolt. "I didn't ask him to get involved in the project but since he did, I'm not going to ignore the comedy value that he brings to everything he touches," Finnigan said. Since 2014, Finnigan has released Kill Climate Deniers as an eBook, film script, walking tour of Parliament House, dance party and album - all ways to get his words out into the world beyond the critical headlines. A uniquely Australian train-smash Sydney's Griffin Theatre Company's production of Kill Climate Deniers is the first fullscale mounting of the play, which won the company's Griffin Award in 2017. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002326-00003 While in 2014 Finnigan was concerned with the new anti-terrorism laws which included an offence of "advocating terrorism", he's less afraid now. "I don't think anyone is going to take this play literally," he said. The artistic director of Griffin Theatre Company, Lee Lewis, directed this staging of Kill Climate Deniers, which she described as having "a uniquely Australian train-smash structure". "He has a clown show with politicians in it, he has an epic tragedy with eco-activists in it and he has a documentary with himself in it; those three strands run really strongly through the play and ... collide at a certain point," she said. "In the wreckage of that train smash emerges a really unique point of view on climate science and the audience's relationship to that." Finnigan is ecstatic to finally see this play, delayed by four years, fully performed. "[Griffin have] taken the work from me ... It's stopped being my play and become their play." PHOTO: (L-R) Lucia Mastrantone, Sheridan Harbridge, Emily Havea and Rebecca Massey in Kill Climate Deniers. (Supplied: Griffin Theatre Company/Brett Boardman) Lewis believes that ultimately Kill Climate Deniers must be read as a satire and that "satire is one of our most useful forms for critiquing really difficult politics". "It critiques the artist and the audience. It asks everybody to look at it through a different, lighter eye, in order to have the conversation, not the argument," Lewis said. As Finnigan sees it, "the play is far from making a point about climate denial. A work of art is always more complex than [a single point], and who knows what an audience is going to take from it." Kill Climate Deniers is showing at Sydney's Griffin Theatre Company until April 7. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002326-00004 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 10/30/2017 11 :00:21 PM Tom Harris in Daily Caller: Pruitt is right to withdraw Clean Power Plan Outstanding piece! h ://dail caller.com/2017/10/30/ Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002327-00001 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 10/30/2017 10:04:22 PM Heartland issues statement on HuffPost fake news reporting Our statement appears below, followed by the disgraceful Huffington Post piece by Alexander Kaufman. I encourage you to contact Mr. Kaufman at 917-606-4668 or alexander.kaufman@huffpost.com and ask him to issue a retraction. Joe https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/heartland-institute-ceo-corrects-false-huffpoststory Heartland Institute CEO Corrects False HuffPost Story October 30, 2017 By Joseph Bast The following statement can be attributed to Joseph Bast, CEO of The Heartland Institute. A story appearing on Friday at HuffPost, a liberal website, claimed The Heartland Institute urged the Trump administration to put a "convicted child sex offender" on a "Red Team" to impartially review the science that underpins United States climate and energy policy. That story is false. The Heartland Institute never recommended that individual for any position, advisory or otherwise. We have asked Huffpost for corrections and retractions. The list of scientists and other experts obtained by HuffPost was actually just an invitation list sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for an EPA event that was scheduled to take place on June 14, 2017. That event, titled the "EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting," was subsequently cancelled when EPA' s "Science Integrity Officer," an Obama administration hold-over named Francesca Grifo, learned skeptics of catastrophic man-caused global warming were planning to attend. The "convicted child sex offender" was not on any list of scientists or other experts SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002328-00001 recommended by The Heartland Institute to serve on a Red Team or any other position in the Trump administration. The shoddy and dishonest reporting by HufjPost, E&E News, and other outlets is shameful and even disgusting, but no different from what we've come to expect from the green left. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ent y/epa-heartlandinstitute us 59f3486be4b07fdc5fbdc13a?zkf Conservative Think Tank Urged EPA To Consider Convicted Child Sex Offender For Climate Panel The retired nuclear chemist made it onto the Heartland Institute's list of climate change deniers submitted to the EPA. By Alexander C. Kaufman In 2008, Oliver Manuel, a nuclear chemist whose crank theories about the sun alienated even ardent climate change deniers, was convicted of attempted sodomy of his I I-year-old daughter. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002328-00002 Manuel retired in 2000, and became a professor emeritus at the school. But the college ended its affiliation with him after the arrest in 2006, university spokeswoman Mary Helen Stoltz told HuffPost. Manuel spent much of his career crusading for his theory that the sun is made primarily of iron, not hydrogen. The solar-magnetic fields that attract burning gases such as hydrogen to the surface of this iron core actually control the Earth's climate, he contested in papersexplaining his view. He presented a paper arguing the theory to the American Astronomical Society in 2002. But his website TheSunlslron.com displays the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory site, with low-fi design, a header reading "Truth is victorious, never untruth," and an image of a document brandished "CENSORED" in big red letters. In 2010, Anthony Watts, who runs the popular climate change denier blog Watts Up With That, wrote in a post that he'd banned Manuel from his site "for carpet bombing threads with his vision of the Iron Sun Theory, which I personally think is nutty." Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter l~I o: 917-606-4668 m: 917- 725-0203 @AlexCKaufinan SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002328-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Mon 10/30/2017 5:05:52 PM No, Heartland did not recommend a child sex offender to serve on a Red Team Friends, During the past few weeks, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, E&E News, and some other outlets have been making hay of a directory of climate scientists and others that The Heartland Institute allegedly sent to EPA. The list is reported in this~===-'---'------"'= article, and a redacted version of the list is now available on line On~=,_, the Huffington Post ran an article titled "Conservative Think Tank Urged EPA to Consider Convicted Child Sex Offender for Climate Panel." It described one person in the table, retired professor Oliver Manuel. The table referred to in these articles and now publicly available at scribd.com is one I composed and sent to EPA, but I did not recommend these people be chosen to serve on a Red Team. It was just a list of people I suggested be invited to attend a June 14 event sponsored by EPA, called the "EPA Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting." The title of the table, which reads "U.S. Climate Scientists Mailing List," communicates that. Mr. Manuel was on the invitation list because he signed petitions in the past objecting to global warming alarmism. I did not conduct background checks on everyone on the list. The EPA meeting was an annual event supposedly open to the public, but people were asked to RSVP in order to get through security. The event subsequently was "postponed" and then apparently canceled when Francesca Grife, EPA's "Science Integrity Officer," learned that some skeptics planned to attend. See for Grifo's announcement that the event was cancelled and reactions. We are issuing a statement to this effect today. I will send you all the link as soon as it is posted. Jim Lakely has asked WaPo, HuffPost, E&E News, and scribd.com to issue retractions and accurately describe the invitation list they have misrepresented. However, it is unlikely that any of them has sufficient journalistic integrity to admit their mistake or to make any changes to their reporting. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002329-00001 If any of you want to defend us from criticism that we "Urged EPA To Consider Convicted Child Sex Offender For Climate Panel," you can say (or quote me saying) "absolutely not. That name was just on an invitation list for an annual EPA event that was open to the public. That name was NOT on a list of scientists recommended for the Red Team or for any other position in the Trump administration." Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002329-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 10/29/2017 8:58:01 PM FW: Oct. 25 Michael Mann Debate Hal Doiron has produced an excellent write-up of his debate with Michael Mann. I share it with his permission ... Joe From: Hal Doiron [mailto:: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ! Sent: Friday, October 27,'·:zot7"9:"3-f"PM·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·" To: Marilyn Doiron Subject: Fw: Oct. 25 Michael Mann Debate My debate with Michael Mann took place Wed eve Oct 25 at the Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills CA. The program was hosted by two of the several chapters of the Los Angeles area Young Presidents Organization (YPO). One of the Chapter members, Leslie Michaels, was the Moderator. The event started at 5pm with a one hour cocktail reception with hors d'ourves and later dinner catered by Wolfgang Puck. The 1.5 hour climate program began at 6pm and dinner followed the program. Both Mann and I were allowed a 15 minute Powerpoint presentation to stake out our positions. I gave a presentation summarizing the results of the TRCS independent assessment of the AGW issue. I gave our study conclusions with a best estimate for Transient Climate Sensitivity(TCS) < l .2C, and ECS < I .SC based on the current Q = 0.9 W/mA2 transported from the earth's surface to the deeper oceans. ECS = TCS + 0.302 (0.9) = 1.2 +0.3 < I .SC when Q=O at equilibrium. This CO2 climate sensitivity, coupled with our RCP6.0 emissions scenario projects< IC additional AGW by 2100. Our RCP6.0 scenario is based on burning all currently known world-wide reserves of coal, oil, and nat gas by 2130. This RCP6.0 scenario estimates 585 ppm atm. CO2 in 2100 with other GHG and aerosols providing their historical 50% radiative forcing of CO2, based on a market-driven transition to alternative fuels that will have to begin by 2060 to meet world-wide energy demand. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002330-00001 With the constant "beta" accounting for the fraction of CO2 radiative forcing caused by other GHG and aerosols, the CO2 concentration rise and HadCRUT4 temp rise since 1850 yields, TCS (1+beta)= l .8C, And, if beta= 0.5, then TCS = l.2C. I claim TCS < l.2C because we conservatively assumed all GMST increase since 1850, ignoring Super El Nino weather events was caused by GHG concentration rise in the atm. Mann followed and gave an Al Gore type presentation with all of the climate alarm speculation you ever hear about, including devastating sea level rise (he said New York City will be under water, but he didn't mention when), more frequent extreme weather events, Global Mean Surface Temp increase by 2100 at the high end of the TAMU Climate Statement projection, ad nauseum. Later in response to my inquiry, he said his GMST projection for 2100 was based on an ECS = 3 and the IPCC's RCP8.5 "Business as Usual" scenario. When I challeged the RCP8.5 scenario as not a best estimate scenario, but by the authors' own admission, a 90th percentile high emissions scenario based on our TRCS investigation of RCP8.5, he disagreed profusely and claimed it was what the mainstream climate community really expected to happen. I don't know if he is just ignorant or inherently dishonest. He claimed there were enough fossil fuels on earth (he carefully did not day economically recoverable reserves) to provide more than 5 times needed for the RCP8.5 scenario which has about 930 ppm CO2 in 2100. At one point when I challenged his claims, he told the audience they could check his facts in a Rolling Stone magazine article. Several audience members laughed out loud. I could have made a much better presentation because, as usual, I could not get thru all of my slides I wanted to present in 15 minutes. I basically was able to present what we concluded from our research, but did not have time to explain our methodology for determining TCS < l .2C. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002330-00002 Based on feedback from attendees who sought me out during and after dinner, I think we did change some minds and reinforced what others were beginning to suspect. One young lady who was a trained clinical psychologist (also a professional golfer), told me she saw right away that Mann was just trying to scare the audience to convince them that his desire to curtail use of fossil fuels was an urgent need. She came to the event very concerned about the AGW issue and said the program completely changed her mind. The YPO chapter leadership is encouraging its members to do their own research on the AGW issue and offered this "debate" as a starting point to highlight points of disagreement. Hal SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002330-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 10/29/2017 3:37:48 PM Newsweek: We were wrong about ancient ocean temperatures ... ... so the global warming crisis is even worse than we thought!!! From the distinguished science writers at Nev;speak Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/ancient-ocean-temperatures-wrong-unparalleled-climate-change694434 HIT Dennis Groh. Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 3 12/377-4000 Email jbast@hcartland.org Web site http://www.hcartland.org Support Heartland today! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002331-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us i1runediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002331-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 3/1/2018 9:34:30 PM Rolling Blackouts: Closer than you think Donn Dears wrote a great piece on how New England narrowly avoided brownouts just last month: Joe On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:40 PM, Joseph Bast wrote: The media and others on the left continue to hide from the public the fact that wind and solar are unreliable and intermittent sources of energy, especially in the winter. Gordon van Welie, president and CEO of ISO New England Inc., is quoted below saying "Looking ahead seven years, 'the study found that rolling blackouts would be needed in 19 out of the 23 scenarios,' he said." Rolling blackouts in New England! Just like third world countries. Remember New York's 1977 blackout? By the time the power came back, 25 hours later, arsonists had set more than 1,000 fires and looters had ransacked 1,600 stores, per the New York Times. Opportunistic thieves grabbed whatever they could get their hands on, from luxury cars to sink stoppers and clothespins, according to the New York Post. The sweltering streets became a battleground, where, per the Post, "even the looters were being mugged." http://time.com/3949986/1977-blackout-new-york-history/ SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002332-00001 A liberal paradise! Joe Energywire Keeping lights on in New England becoming 'tenuous' E&E News reporter Published: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 During most times of the year, electricity supply in New England is reliable and competitively priced. But in the winter, when home heating competes with power generation for limited natural gas supplies, operating the grid is more and more a chancy proposition, according to Gordon van Welie, president and CEO of ISO New England Inc. "As more oil, coal and nuclear plants seek to retire in the coming years, keeping the lights on could become even more tenuous," van Welie said yesterday during a call with media on the "State of the Grid" in SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002332-00002 2018. While "the power system continues to operate reliably and competitive markets are working," significant challenges are on the horizon, he said. There are enough power plants and demand-side resources on the sixstate grid to meet peak consumer demand, and extensive transmission system upgrades are bolstering reliability, van Welie said. But "there are challenges to the timely delivery of the fuels needed to produce electricity," and that risk endangers market operations, van Welie said, referring to a fuel security analysis the grid operator released in January that found getting through winters is going to get harder over the next decade, simply because there may not be enough fuel (Energywire, Jan. 19). That analysis considered 23 possible power generation scenarios with five key variables: liquefied natural gas, oil, electricity imports, renewable resources and retirements of non-gas generators. Looking ahead seven years, "the study found that rolling blackouts would be needed in 19 out of the 23 scenarios," he said. In the winter of 2024-2025, the ISO said that New England is vulnerable to a seasonlong outage of any of several major energy facilities, that the power system will be "heavily dependent" on LNG and electricity imports, and that fuel shortages that require curbing electricity delivery are likely. This past winter may have been a harbinger of that outlook when the region was pummeled by a two-week cold spell in the last week of December and the first week of January. The "bomb cyclone" required seldom-used oil-fired generating units to rescue the power grid. About 3.9 million barrels of fuel oil held in reserve by dual-fuel gas and oil generators picked up the slack when gas was unavailable (Energywire, Jan. 5). Oil-fired plants generally run about 2 percent of the time, van Welie said. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002332-00003 New England's energy mix has changed significantly since 2000. Natural gas now provides 48 percent of electricity, versus 15 percent in 2000. Oil provides 1 percent compared with 22 percent in 2000. Coal is down to 2 percent from 18 percent, and renewables have risen from 8 percent to 11 percent. "The [fuel security] study does not propose solutions or address costs, but it's clear that solving these fuel security challenges will be costly," van Welie said. The financial cost already includes chronic price spikes for consumers during cold weather. To avoid greater reliability risks, "we need to connect up replacement sources of energy and/or relieve the constraints on the pipelines before we lose the older resources that are no longer economic," van Welie said. "We may have to change our tariff - the tariff really being the market rules that we use to administer the wholesale market - to allow for retention of resources [such as nuclear or oil units] for fuel security," he said. And that will require the agreement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, he added. "That's a conversation that will play out in the coming years," van We lie said. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002332-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 3/1/2018 8:48:16 PM WSJ: The biggest lie in American climate journalism is that reporters cover climate science as a science. HIT Willie Soon. After 33 years, I've cancelled my Wall Street Journal subscription, so you won't be seeing many messages like this from me. Maybe a mistake, but it is feeling rather liberating for now. The article below by columnist Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., is very good, although he overestimates the value of the Cox, Williamson, and Huntingford paper. As I understand it, it's just more computer model tuning, and while we can be happy they believe it rules out catastrophic scenarios, we shouldn't believe them, any more than we believe any other computer model. The Right Climate Stuffs estimate of about 1 degree C by 2100 is, in my book, the only empirically validated forecast. Joe h s://www.ws·.com/articles/ ood-climate-ncws-isnt-told-1519772044. Good Climate News Isn't Told Reporting scientific progress would require admitting uncertainties. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. Feb. 27, 2018 5:54 p.m. ET The biggest lie in American climate journalism is that reporters cover climate science as a science. Except for a report on the Washington Post website that was picked up by a couple of regional papers, an important study on the most important question in climate science last month went completely unnoticed in the U.S. media. Consult the laughably named website Inside Climate News, which poses as authoritative. A query yields only the response "Your search did not return any results" plus a come-on for donations to "Keep Environmental Journalism Alive." So we'll quote a passage in an exemplary French report that begins, "But uncertainty about how hot things will get also stems from the inability of scientists to nail down a very simple question: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002333-00001 By how much will Earth's average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?" "That 'known unknown' is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and for the last 25 years the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-the ultimate authority on climate science-has settled on a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C." The French report describes a new study by climate physicists Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the U.K.'s Center for Ecology and Hydrology. Not only does it narrow the range of expected warming to between 2.2 and 3.4 degrees Celsius, but it rules out the possibility of worrying outcomes higher than 4 degrees. Their study might be less interesting and newsworthy if it weren't the latest crystallization of a trend. Even the IPCC is an example. Slightly contrary to the French report, it backpedaled in 2013 to adopt a wider range of uncertainty, and did so entirely in the direction of less warming. More to the point, this 2013 move was a much-needed confession of scientific failure that the Exeter group and others now are trying to remedy. The IPCC's estimate was no more useful or precise than one developed in 1979 by the U.S. National Research Council, when computers and data sets were far more primitive. This 40-year lack of progress is no less embarrassing for being thoroughly unreported in the mainstream press. The journal Nature, where the new study appears, frankly refers to an "intractable problem." In an accompanying commentary, a climate scientist says the issue remains "stubbornly uncertain." You may be falling out of your chair right now if you recall a recent lawsuit by New York's attorney general against Exxon, itself a pioneering pursuer of climate studies, for daring to mention the existence of continuing "uncertainties." This question of climate sensitivity goes not just to how much warming we can expect. It goes to the (almost verboten) question of whether the expected warming will be a net plus or net minus for humanity. And whether the benefit of curbing fossil fuels would be worth the cost. Yet you can practically chart the deepening idiocy of U.S. climate reporting since the 1980s by how these knotty, interesting questions have fallen away in favor of an alleged fight between science and deniers. "Fake news" is not our favorite pejorative. A better analysis is offered by former New York Times reporter Michael Cieply in a piece he wrote in 2016 when he started a new job at =-=====· He describes how, unlike at a traditional "reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper," reporters at the Times were required to "match stories with what internally was often called 'the narrative.' " Leaving climate sensitivity uncertainties out of the narrative certainly distorts the reporting that follows. Take a widely cited IPCC estimate that, "with 95% certainty," humans are responsible SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002333-00002 for at least half the warming observed between 1951 and 2010. This sounds empirical and is reported as such. In fact, such estimates are merely derivative of how much warming should have taken place if the standard climate sensitivity estimate is correct. Imagine predicting an 8 before letting the dice fly, then assuming an 8 must have come up because that's what your model predicted. To be clear, the U.S. and other governments have done increasingly minute and exacting work in cataloging actual climate and weather patterns. We argue here they have grossly underperformed in sorting out cause and effect. And since the press's job is to hold institutions accountable, the output of government climate science is so poor partly because of the abysmally bad job done by reporters on the climate beat. No better example exists than their gullibility in the face of U.S. government press releases pronouncing the latest year the "warmest on record." Scroll down and the margin of error cited in the government's own press release would lead you rightly to suspect that a clear trend is actually hard to find in recent decades despite a prodigious increase in CO2 output. Well, guess what? Taking account of the actual temperature record and its tiny variations is exactly what the Exeter group and others have been doing in order to make progress on the 40year problem of climate sensitivity. And they are finding less risk of a catastrophic outcome than previously thought. Appeared in the February 28, 2018, print edition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002333-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 3/1/2018 7:40:12 PM Rolling Blackouts The media and others on the left continue to hide from the public the fact that wind and solar are unreliable and intermittent sources of energy, especially in the winter. Gordon van Welie, president and CEO of ISO New England Inc., is quoted below saying "Looking ahead seven years, 'the study found that rolling blackouts would be needed in 19 out of the 23 scenarios,' he said." Rolling blackouts in New England! Just like third world countries. Remember New York's 1977 blackout? By the time the power came back, 25 hours later, arsonists had set more than 1,000 fires and looters had ransacked 1,600 stores, per the New York Times. Opportunistic thieves grabbed whatever they could get their hands on, from luxury cars to sink stoppers and clothespins, according to the New York Post. The sweltering streets became a battleground, where, per the Post, "even the looters were being mugged." http://time.com/3949986/1977-blackout-new-york-histo y/ A liberal paradise! Joe Energywire SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002334-00001 Keeping lights on in New England becoming 'tenuous' Published: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 During most times of the year, electricity supply in New England is reliable and competitively priced. But in the winter, when home heating competes with power generation for limited natural gas supplies, operating the grid is more and more a chancy proposition, according to Gordon van Welie, president and CEO of ISO New England Inc. "As more oil, coal and nuclear plants seek to retire in the coming years, keeping the lights on could become even more tenuous," van Welie said yesterday during a call with media on the "State of the Grid" in 2018. While "the power system continues to operate reliably and competitive markets are working," significant challenges are on the horizon, he said. There are enough power plants and demand-side resources on the sixstate grid to meet peak consumer demand, and extensive transmission system upgrades are bolstering reliability, van Welie said. But "there are challenges to the timely delivery of the fuels needed to produce electricity," and that risk endangers market operations, van Welie said, referring to a fuel security analysis the grid operator released in January that found getting through winters is going to get harder over the next decade, simply because there may not be enough fuel (Energywire, Jan. 19). SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002334-00002 That analysis considered 23 possible power generation scenarios with five key variables: liquefied natural gas, oil, electricity imports, renewable resources and retirements of non-gas generators. Looking ahead seven years, "the study found that rolling blackouts would be needed in 19 out of the 23 scenarios," he said. In the winter of 2024-2025, the ISO said that New England is vulnerable to a seasonlong outage of any of several major energy facilities, that the power system will be "heavily dependent" on LNG and electricity imports, and that fuel shortages that require curbing electricity delivery are likely. This past winter may have been a harbinger of that outlook when the region was pummeled by a two-week cold spell in the last week of December and the first week of January. The "bomb cyclone" required seldom-used oil-fired generating units to rescue the power grid. About 3.9 million barrels of fuel oil held in reserve by dual-fuel gas and oil generators picked up the slack when gas was unavailable (Energywire, Jan. 5). Oil-fired plants generally run about 2 percent of the time, van Welie said. New England's energy mix has changed significantly since 2000. Natural gas now provides 48 percent of electricity, versus 15 percent in 2000. Oil provides 1 percent compared with 22 percent in 2000. Coal is down to 2 percent from 18 percent, and renewables have risen from 8 percent to 11 percent. "The [fuel security] study does not propose solutions or address costs, but it's clear that solving these fuel security challenges will be costly," van Welie said. The financial cost already includes chronic price spikes for consumers during cold weather. To avoid greater reliability risks, "we need to connect up replacement sources of energy and/or relieve the constraints on the pipelines before we lose the older resources that are no longer economic," van Welie said. "We may have to change our tariff - the tariff really being the market rules that we use to administer the wholesale market - to allow for retention of SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002334-00003 resources [such as nuclear or oil units] for fuel security," he said. And that will require the agreement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, he added. "That's a conversation that will play out in the coming years," van Welie said. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002334-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 3/1/2018 7:30:21 PM This is what winning looks like: Pruitt interviewed by The Daily Signal It's one thing when we say it, it's another when EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says it http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/25/weaponization-epa-exclusive-interview-scottpruitt/?utm source=TDS Email&utm medium=email&utm campaign=MomingBell%22%22&mkt "But the key to me is the weaponization of the agency that took place in the Obama administration, where the agency was used to pick winners and losers. Those days are over .... Can you imagine, in the first instance, an agency of the federal government, a department of the U.S. government, declaring war on a sector of your economy? Where is that in the statute? Where does that authority exist? It doesn't. And so to restore process and restore commitment to doing things the right way, I think we've seen tremendous success this past year." "Think about those farmers and those ranchers. They're our first conservationists. They're our first environmentalists .... We shouldn't start from the premise that those folks are adversaries or don't care about clean air or clean water. We should start from the premise that they do, and work with them to achieve good outcomes. That's the difference in how we approach it versus the past administration." Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002335-00001 tok= Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002335-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 3/15/2018 9:34:52 PM E&E News: Science goes to court. Does alarmism equal 'perjury'? See my comments and corrections in red, below. Scott Waldman is worse than Seth Borenstein when it comes to reporting on climate science. What he doesn't know could fill a sports stadium; what he thinks he knows that isn't true could fill the parking lot. Joe https:/ /www .eenews. neUcli matewire/stories/1060076367 Science goes to court. Does skepticism alarmism equal 'perjury'? Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter Published: Thursday, March 15, 2018 Climate science is getting its day in court. Unusual developments in two separate legal cases last week will bring climate science into a courtroom, pitting environmental advocates and cities run by Democrats against the Trump administration, most objective scientists knowledgeable about climate change, and the oil industry. Neither case will resolve one of the most partisan issues in American politics, but it could influence future environmental policy and set a precedent for using climate science in legal cases. It also comes as U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is calling for a similar debate through a red team exercise that seeks to poke holes in restore mainstream climate science after 8 ears of politicization and weaponization b the Obama administration. There could be contrasts. Pruitt's idea would be heard in the court of public opinion, not a courtroom. That might result in different arguments. "In a debate, alternative facts are alternative facts," said Phil Gregory, an attorney for 21 children who are suing the federal government over climate change. "In a trial, alternative facts are perjury." Dependin on the outcomes of these trials, Grego y and environmental activists like SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002336-00001 him could be sent to prison for committing pe ju . The judges overseeing the separate cases are delving into the scientific research around climbing temperatures. A "tutorial" on climate science is scheduled for March 21 in San Francisco in a case involving two cities that are suing large oil companies for causing damage related to sealevel rise. The other case, called Juliana v. United States, is scheduled for trial in about six months. Also known as the "kids' climate case," it was filed by a group of environmental activists claiming to represent children who claim that the federal government violated their constitutional rights by pursuing policies that exacerbate climate change. The cases are a test for lawyers from the government and the oil industry at a time when the president has called climate change a "hoax" and more recently suggested the Earth could be cooling. Making those claims in a political context is different from questioning credible scientific findings in a court of law. "All of the forums in which the Trump administration has been advancing its climate-denial agenda are political and media," said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. "Now they may be in a position where they are subject to cross-examination before an independent decisionmaker." The judges overseeing the separate cases are both liberals without any scientific training, so it is unclear who he thinks is an "independent decisionmaker" in these cases. The first of those is scheduled for next week, when the cities of Oakland and San Francisco and the oil companies they're suing, including BP PLC, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC - will present a five-hour climate science "tutorial" to Judge William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Alsup requested a history of the scientific study of climate change as well as "the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding." Both sides will be given equal time to prove their point, though even most of the oil companies have tried to appease environmental groups and Obama-eara regulators by "confessing" to alleged climate crimes. Consequently, the oil companies cannot now argue that the science is on their side, making this hearin meaningless and little more than a charade. noVYacknoVYledgethe I eality of climate change. Meanwhile, judges in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week allowed a separate case to proceed to trial. Some observers contend the kids' climate case could prompt the Trump administration to argue that immediate government action isn't needed, because the U.S. alone is unable to substantially lower temperatures. Next week's courthouse tutorial could be as close to a red team debate for climate skeptics since Trump took office, said Steven Koonin, a physicist at New York University and a former Obama administration Energy Department official known for his luke-warm contrarian take on climate science. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002336-00002 Because the courtroom offers the promise of a neutral arbitrator [cough, cough], it is one of the rare occasions where consensus and divergent views on climate science are represented on "equal footing," he said. Koonin, who has been cited by Pruitt as an inspiration for the red-team concept, said the court case could help inform future policy by creating a legal foundation around the idea that scientific uncertainty is greater in the climate community than some are willing to admit. "What I would hope to come out of any adversarial review or discussion would be for people to understand the uncertainties, the strengths, the weaknesses of the consensus case, which to my mind have not been properly represented in the media or the policy-informing summaries," Koonin said. Others see a different outcome. The science doesn't support inaction on climate, Gerrard said. He asserts that bending science to fit political goals won't work in a courtroom, where "truth matters, unlike in some comers of Congress these days." "Anything that they say in this case will be quoted back at them if they try to undermine the endangerment finding or vice versa," Gerrard added, referring to a major finding by EPA that provides its authority to regulate greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and other sources, echoing calls by climate realists that the Trump administration needs to begin the process of rescinding the Obama-era the Endangerment Finding. The Juliana case was filed during the Obama administration, which acknowledged a number of climate risks even as it fought the lawsuit. That means experts brought in by the Trump administration will have to accept the presence of climate dangers. Actually, all the Trump administration has to do is re ort that new science findin s since 2009 ·usti reversin 1 its previous Endangerment Finding. That is trivially simple, since hundreds of articles have been published since 2009 showing man-made climate change is less of a threat than previously thought. Evidence has also been found that the IPCC, on whose reports EPA relied on heavily for its Endangerment Finding, failed to meet EPA's scientific standards. That could complicate their attempts to discredit climate science, said Gregory, the Juliana case attorney. Both cases could set a legal precedent by forcing the Trump administration and fossil fuel companies to show exactly where they land on climate science, even as both have at times sought to highlight the uncertainties. "Where the fossil fuel industry and the current administration can attempt to play the merchants of doubt uncertainty game before their little fossil fuel and Heritage Foundation groups, that's not going to work in a court oflaw," Gregory said. "It will force them to set out what they actually believe what the science is." Trump and many of his top Cabinet officials have routinely rejected malnst1earn the GoreObama extremist inte pretation of climate science, and fossil fuel companies have funded groups to soVvdoubt among educate the public. For years, Trump has tweeted on cold days that the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002336-00003 world needs more global warming. Pruitt has suggested that climate change will benefit humans. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has said carbon dioxide is not the primary control knob for the atmosphere. The bulk of climate science shows all those contentions to be fu1--s-e true. Even though Trump and some of his Cabinet members dismiss climate science, they haven't yet put forward an alternative argument. The Juliana case might change that. The administration now has about six months to show an alternate set of research or acknowledge it doesn't exist, critics said. The government might try to avoid focusing on climate science in the courtroom, said David Bookbinder, chief counsel at the self-described libertarian Niskanen Center. That's because Justice Department lawyers know it's a hard case to make; they could instead focus on getting a summary judgement or taking the case to the Supreme Court. "Even this administration has no interest in trying to humiliate itself in trying to overturn the endangerment finding," Bookbinder said. "I think the enviros would be delighted if they tried to do that. For one, it would tie up the idiots at EPA for years trying to come up with this, trying to justify 'Here's the I 00,000 pages of science we based the endangerment finding on and, you know, sorry, we got that wrong, our bad."' But then, Bookbinder flunked the only college science course he ever took. Joe Joseph Bast Director and Senior Fellow The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002336-00004 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002336-00005 From: Sent: Subject: CCR-II Joseph Bast Thur 3/15/2018 8:50:48 PM FW: Suzuki attack leads to an ICSC OpEd and five letters to the editors published, all boosting Great work by Tom Harris! Joe From: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net [mailto:tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 2:15 PM To: Joseph Bast; Diane Bast; Jay Lehr (External); Billy Aouste; Jim Lakely; Tim Huelskamp; Keely Drukala Subject: Suzuki attack leads to an ICSC OpEd and five letters to the editors published, all boosting CCRII Hi friends, I love it when David Suzuki attacks ICSC in the press since it shows that he is concerned about us and, given that his pieces are usually chock full of mistakes, it gives us a chance to respond in the press. Here is the latest example: over the past couple of weeks' Suzuki attacked us on his club's home page and then in a half-dozen newspapers across Canada. Here is the version on his Web site: Sooo, we got five letters to the editor published in response. Here is the first, March 9, in Kelowna, British Columbia: https://www.kelownacapnews.com/opinion/letter-suzuki-claims-are-not-true/ Here is the latest (today) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, a shorter version of the BC one: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002337-00001 https://www.thecoast.ca/hal ifax/letters-to-the-editor-marc h-8-2018/Content?oid=13312434 And, just a few minutes ago, PJ Media (5,000,000 separate readers a month I am told) out of Los Angeles published an OpEd by Dr. Ball and me which dismantles Suzuki's position completely: Here is the text of the OpEd: TRENDING n limate hange, lease ddress the Science, ot the Politics BY DR TIM BALL AND TOM HARRIS MARCH 15, 2018 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002337-00002 Colonialism wagon at the People's Climate March. Image Credit: Tyler O'Neil, PJ Media. The climate debate is one of the most important discussions in the world today. At stake are billions of dollars, millions of jobs, and -- if people like Canadian environmental activist Dr. David Suzuki are right -- the fate of the global environment. Consequently, we need all parties in the debate to behave responsibly. Sadly, climate discussions are often poisoned by misrepresentations and errors in reasoning. Suzuki does this in "Climate science deniers' credibili tested," his March 1 article attacking those of us who question the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Published on the David Suzuki Foundation website and reproduced by media across Canada, Suzuki's attack is typical of what independent thinkers about climate science experience on a regular basis. For that reason, his article is worth examining in detail. Suzuki implies that the argument presented by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, that glaciers "are basically dead zones," is somehow wrong Similarly, Suzuki mocks as "anticlimate-science" the position I (Harris) promote: that "carbon dioxide is harmless plant food" In neither case does Suzuki explain in his article what is mistaken with these statements. Perhaps this is because both are obviously true. While he may not understand glaciers, one would assume that, as a biologist, Suzuki would comprehend that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, an essential reactant in plant photosynthesis on which all life on Earth depends. That's why commercial greenhouse operators routinely run their internal atmospheres at up to 1,500 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide concentration Plants inside grow far more efficiently than at the 400 ppm in the outside atmosphere. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002337-00003 Climate Chan e Reconsidered II: Biolo ical Im acts, a report from the ~ngovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, cites over 1,000 peerreviewed studies that document rising productivity of forests and grasslands as carbon dioxide levels have increased, and not just in recent decades, but in past centuries. Despite the excited proclamations of climate activists, increasing carbon dioxide levels poses no direct hazard to human health. Carbon dioxide concentrations in submarines can reach levels well above 10,000 ppm, 25 times current atmospheric levels, with no harmful effects on the crew. Aside from these two issues, and his false claim that I doubt "the existence of humancaused climate change altogether," Suzuki says nothing about the science we present. He complains about "personal attacks" from those of us who do not agree with his position on climate change, but then does a similar thing himself: he implies that we have "suspect motives." He says "[s]kepticism and rational debate are healthy," but then condemns our skepticism as "logical fallacies, misinformation and outright lies designed to support destructive industries by duping the gullible and muddying the waters," an approach he labels "unconscionable." Over the years, Suzuki has often made these sorts of charges -- they are in effect ad hominem attacks, directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining This is common in the climate change debate. It often occurs when people don't really understand tl1e subject under discussion or see that they are losing the argument. But sucl1 an approach merely serves to underscore the weakness in their position and demonstrates that Suzuki, like so many others who support the IPCC position, does not really understand Thomas Huxley's observation: The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin. The term denier is more problematic and troubling, of course, because of the Holocaust connotation. Making an analogy, even indirectly, between denial of the Holocaust and questioning the causes of climate change is irrational and offensive to Holocaust survivors and their families. The former was a horrific event that is part of established history, while the latter concerns arguably the most complex science ever tackled No scientist on either side of the issue denies that climate changes. Indeed, they know that the only constant about climate is change. It is merely the causes and extent of those changes that are being questioned, very sensible issues to be carefully examined considering what is at stake. Suzuki's attack piece was apparently triggered by the February 13, 2018 British Columbia Supreme Court ruling that I (Ball) did not defame Dr. Andrew Weaver in my article "Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years," published on the Canada Free Press website on January 10, 2011 (since removed). The point I was making in my article and later in court was the inappropriateness of Weaver using SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002337-00004 climate science to achieve a political agenda. Weaver said that point was defamatory, but the presiding judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Skolrood, agreed with my point in his ruling. Mr. Skolrood opened the trial by saying his court would not be used to determine the global warming issue. This is similar to U.S Justice Antonin Scalia's comment when ruling on the Environmental Protection Agency carbon dioxide issue. This is the standard legal argument: that the courts are not qualified to make science judgments because they are not scientists. Yet later in the trial, likely as a sop to Weaver, who appeared in court as leader of the Green party and elected member of the BC Legislature, Mr. Skolrood violated his opening statement by asserting that the article in question was poorly written and therefore not persuasive to a reader. How could he know this? It is probable that Mr. Skolrood, like the majority of the public, doesn't understand that the issue is not whether climate change occurs, it is whether humans are the principle cause and if "anthropogenic" global warming is in any way a threat. In November 2013, Suzuki announced in Maclean's magazine that "Environmentalism has Failed." What he doesn't appear to realize is that only his misuse and misrepresentation of environmentalism has failed. Like Weaver, he appeared to use the moral high ground of the necessary new paradigm of environmentalism for a political agenda. It doesn't make sense to soil your own nest, of course. But Suzuki essentially claimed that only he and his followers cared about the environment, and that no other point of view should be tolerated. That is the real antiscience in the climate debate. In court, Weaver did not present any witnesses or empirical evidence in support of dangerous human-caused global warming He couldn't. The only "evidence" is output from IPCC computer models, and they were wrong about every prediction they have made since 1990. It is simple: if your predictions are wrong, the science is wrong. And even if the science behind the computer models was correct, Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, estimates: "The climate impact of ... every nation fulfilling every [Paris Agreement] promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100." (His emphasis) This means there is only massive cost and damage with no tangible climatic benefit. The objective is therefore clearly political -- precisely the point I made in my original Canada Free Press article. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002337-00005 Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002337-00006 From: Sent: Subject: Proposed Joseph Bast Wed 12/6/2017 8:22:27 PM A second, third, and fourth chance: EPA Announces Additional Public Listening Sessions on Repeal of Clean Power Plan FYI. Joe From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmail19.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 2:11 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: EPA Announces Additional Public Listening Sessions on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan EPA Announces Additional Public Listening Sessions on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan WASHINGTON (December 6, 2017) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold three additional public listening sessions on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan in San Francisco, Calif., Gillette, Wyo. and Kansas City, Mo. "Due to the overwhelming response to our West Virginia hearing, we are announcing additional opportunities for the public to voice their views to the Agency," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Public listening sessions will be on EPA's proposed repeal of the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (commonly known as the Clean Power Plan). Dates and specific locations will be released in coming weeks; please see the website for details. All persons wanting to speak are encouraged to register in advance. "The Trump administration is listening to the people of Wyoming," said U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). "Today's announcement that the EPA will hold a listening session in Gillette, on the impacts of the so-called 'Clean Power Plan,' demonstrates the administration's commitment to hear directly from the people who would have been hurt most by this punishing regulation. The Clean Power Plan would have meant lost jobs for energy workers in Gillette and across Wyoming. I am thankful to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for his leadership on this important issue." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002338-00001 Oral comments and supporting information presented at each session will be included in the docket for this proceeding. Written comments about EPA's proposal must be received by the last day of the comment period, January 16, 2018. Comments should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355 and may be submitted by one of the methods listed on the Clean Power Plan Proposed Repeal: How to Comment web page. Background: Soon after the previous Administration issued the Clean Power Plan in 2015, 150 entities including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 rural electric co-ops, and three labor unions challenged the CPP, highlighting a range of legal and technical concerns. A few months later, the United States Supreme Court stayed the CPP, immediately halting implementation-the first time the Supreme Court had ever issued a stay to block the enforcement of a regulation. On March 28, 2017, Administrator Pruitt signed a notice indicating the EPA's intent to review the Clean Power Plan, in accord with the President's Energy Independence Executive Order. On October 16, the EPA proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan, proposing that it is not consistent with the Clean Air Act. EPA is now taking comment on that proposal and has extended the public comment period to January 16, 2018. h U.S. Environrnental Protection Agency ·1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest V\/ashington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002338-00002 From: Joseph Bast Fri 3/23/2018 4:35:29 PM The "Climate Science Tutorial" in San Francisco imaqe001.ernz Sent: Subject: GW Posse, We are still waiting for the transcript of the tutorial, but here are my preliminary reactions to what happened on Wednesday: The Powerpoint used by the lawyers for Chevron (the other oil companies didn't send someone to speak, but all of the defendants submitted the Powerpoint into testimony) is now posted here: http:/ /blog s2. law. colu mb ia. edu/ climate-cha nge-I itig ation/wp-co nte nUu ploads/sites/ 16/casedocu ments/2018/20180321 docket-317-cv-06011 na.pdf The Daily Caller's Michael Batasch observes the irony of an oil company citing the IPCC reports while environmentalists say those reports are inaccurate: TABLES TURNED: Alarmists Now 'Deny' Climate Science While Big Oil Defends It Here is my take on what is good about Chevron's presentation: * We have long argued that the full reports of the IPCC reports contain many admissions of uncertainty and doubt (see, e.g., page 39 of Whv Scientists Disagree About Global Warming) while the "summaries for policymakers" are political documents that exclude all language implying doubt and are edited by environmental activists and politicians to serve political ends. Chevron quite rightly looked to the actual studies and documented the admissions of uncertainty during the period of time when they are accused of hiding a scientific consensus. That's a good and safe argument. If you believe the IPCC is a credible source (more on that below), this seems to be a compelling argument for the defense. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_ 00002340-00001 * Chevron asks the court to distinguish between the defendants' activities - the extraction of fossil fossils from the ground - and the activity that may be causing climate change - the combustion of fossil fuels. The IPCC of course recognizes the use of fossil fuels by consumers and industry releases the lion's share of carbon dioxide, not the exploration, drilling, refining, and transportation of the product. Therefore, Chevron argues in effect, the IPCC reports do not prove that oil companies are responsible for global warming, or at least oil companies cannot solve the problem without the active help (sacrifice) of others. This is at least a clever argument that separates the question of "what causes climate change" from "who should be responsible for whatever harms climate change brings." It supports the oil industry's long-standing position that if global warming is a problem in need of solution, then the solution must involve the users (through mechanisms like cap and trade or a tax on carbon dioxide emissions) and must be international (a binding treaty requiring China and India to limit their emissions). * Chevron directly questions plaintiffs' claims that sea level rise attributable to global warming poses a threat to California cities by quoting IPCC reports admitting to uncertainty about the amount of rise and whether California has or will face much sea level rise in the future. For example, "It is likely that [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate com parable to that observed between 1993 and 201 O," and "Since the late 20th century, satellite measurements of the height of the ocean surface relative to the center of the Earth (known as geocentric sea level) show differing rates of geocentric sea level change around the world .... [T]hose in the eastern Pacific Ocean are lower than the global mean value, with much of the west coast of the Americas experiencing a fall in sea surface height over the same period." This is consistent with recent ___ and ____ research on the topic. * Chevron quotes the plaintiffs own words, contained in municipal bond offerings, admitting future sea level rise cannot be predicted. E.g., '"'The City is unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur, when they may occur, and if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City and the local economy." Citing "City & Cty. of S.F. Tax-Exempt General Obligation Bonds, Official Statement (Jan. 2017)" and a similar statement by the City of Oakland. Hypocrisy of this sort is rife in the environmental movement (cf. Al Gore), it's nice to see it documented in this case. Here is what is wrong with the Chevron presentation: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002340-00002 * There appears to be no critique of IPCC's claim to represent the consensus of scientific thought. There is an extensive literature showing IPCC's mandate is to make a case for action on man-made climate change rather than to test the hypothesis that a human impact is detectible and would be harmful. This makes it a political organization and not a scientific body. The way it appoints people to its task forces, conducts fake peer review, and claims confidence in its findings all suggest politics and bias. See the many references in Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (pp. 38-44 ). * Chevron's graphic showing "The Greenhouse Effect," although taken from IPCC AR4, is more appropriate for a middleschool science class than a briefing before a federal district judge. Earth's climate is probably the most complicated system known to man. Most natural processes are poorly understood, and even the most sophisticated climate models incorporate educated guesses and assumptions that are then "tuned" to produce results that conform to the modelers' expectations (and the expectations of their government funders). Why not use this moment to admit that no progress has been made in determining climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels since research began in the 1970s? That's a missing fact in the debate. * Chevron's history of climate science after the 1950s erases any mention of widespread skepticism toward the claims that carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels could be affecting climate, whether it could be causing warming rather than cooling, whether future climate conditions can be forecast with any degree of reliability, and whether natural processes are sufficiently understood to distinguish their effects from the hypothetical effects of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. The SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002340-00003 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has exhaustively catalogued this literature, as have prolific authors including Patrick Michaels and Rupert Darwall. To tell the history of climate science as the steady and inevitable climb from uncertainty to absolute confidence in the increasingly bizarre claims of the environmental left is completely and utterly wrong and, like the graphic of "the greenhouse effect," childlike in its naivete. * Chevron never questions the use of the adulterated surface temperature record instead of more accurate and truly global satellite records, the latter showing very little warming since the record began in 1979. This is hardly a trivial point, since an unusual or unnatural rise in global temperatures beginning in the second half of the 20 th Century is alleged to be the primary and central fact at the heart of the litigation and the entire global warming issue. Recent findings of manipulation of the temperature record, coming on top of devastating critiques of the Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" temperature record, a record endorsed and promoted by the IPCC, and the Climategate scandal exposing misconduct by many prominent IPCC authors, editors, and contributors, explain why the defendants should not concede this point. * Chevron fails to mention even one of the series of frauds that have undermined the credibility of climate science. Those scandals include the Climategate scandal, the Phil Jones "missing database" scandal, the John Beale scandal, the UN/IPCC peer-review scandal, the NOAA surface temperature "corrections" scandal, the climate model "tuning scandal," the PM 2.5 epidemiology scandal, the "RICO 20" scandal, and most recently the Russian collusion with environmental groups scandal. If Chevron bothered to turn some of its hundreds of lawyers loose on even two or three of these scandals, it would easily discredit the plaintiff's alleged experts. In short, Chevron may have made only so many arguments as it thinks is necessary to win this case, which I suppose is what good lawyers do. It made those arguments well, and perhaps they will convince a liberal judge to end a frivolous case. But Chevron left many false and misleading claims before the court, claims that contaminate the public debate on climate change and will continue to haunt the fossil fuel industry and threaten our energy freedom unless they are faced and debunked. Joe From: Jameson Campaigne [mailto:i Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 12:24 AM To: Joseph Bast; Jim Lakely Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 j ED_ 001389A_ 00002340-00004 Subject: TABLES TURNED: Alarmists Now 'Deny' Climate Science While Big Oil Defends It SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002340-00005 13;] 4, 5/4223? a up. (a SELC EPA, NO. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 13;] 4, 5/4223? a up. (a SELC EPA, NO. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 10/27/2017 10:45:54 PM One more huge victory: Department of the Interior Releases Energy Burdens Report ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: U.S. Department of the Interior Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:52 PM Subject: Department of the Interior Releases Energy Burdens Report Date: October 25, 2017 Contact: Interior Press@ios.doi.gov Department of the Interior Releases Energy Burdens Report Outlines Trump Administration's bold approach to achieving American energy dominance WASHINGTON -Today, the U.S. Department of the Interior released the "Review of the Department of the Interior Actions that Potentially Burden Domestic Energy" report which was produced in response to Executive Order 13783. The report identified agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. Interior oversees America's oil, gas, coal, hydropower, and renewable energy resources produced on federal lands and waters, which account for almost one-fifth of the Nation's energy and generate on average $10 billion per year in annual revenue. Today, Secretary Zinke also signed Secretarial Order 3358, that will establish the Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting. "Developing our energy resources to grow our economy and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive. However, while conducting the review outlined in the Executive Order, we found that several costly and burdensome regulations from the past threaten that balance by hampering the production or transmission of our domestic energy," said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. "Our public lands are meant to be managed for the benefit of the people. That means a multiple-use approach where appropriate and making sure that multiple-use SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002343-00001 includes energy development under reasonable regulations. Following President Trump's leadership, Interior is fostering domestic energy production by streamlining permitting and revising and repealing Obama-era job killing regulations - all while doing so in an environmentally responsible way." "The federal government can and must be a better business partner," Vincent DeVito, Counselor to the Secretary for Energy Policy, said. "Secretary Zinke's bold approach to achieving American energy dominance is making our nation freer, more secure, and more prosperous. Regulations should not unnecessarily burden energy production, but that is what occurs in many cases. The recent actions outlined in this energy report show how Interior is rolling back some of these burdensome regulations that add little or no value, while promoting responsible energy development." The report identified a number of burdens that specifically impede the production and transportation of energy resources, including, but not limited to: • Obama-Era 5-Year Program Under the last Administration, 94% of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) was put off-limits from leasing, having an adverse effect on jobs and energy dominance, while drastically reducing access to future revenue. 0 Trump Administration Action: Secretarial Order 3350 America-First Offshore Energy Strategy started the process of developing a new 5-Year Program to responsibly develop the OCS and generate much-needed revenue. • Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium (Secretarial Order 3338, Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program) Nearly 40% of our nation's coal comes from public lands. The 2016 coal moratorium undermines American energy security, inhibits job creation, and reduces revenues to state and local governments. 0 Action: Secretarial Order 3348, Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium repealed the Obama-era moratorium on new federal coal leases. • Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands Rule The compliance costs of the existing 2015 rule on hydraulic fracturing are not justified. All 32 states with federal oil and gas leases and some tribes currently have laws or regulations that address hydraulic fracturing operations. 0 Action: Secretarial Order 3349: American Energy independence put the rule under review. The BLM published a rulemaking to rescind the rule on July 25th. • Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation AKA the Venting and Flaring Rule The rule imposes a substantial burden on industry, especially for marginal well production in energy-rich states like New Mexico, particularly the requirements that are set to become effective on January 17, SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002343-00002 2018. 0 Action: Secretarial Order 3349: American Energy independence put the rules under review for subsequent action by the Department. On October 5, 2017, the BLM issued a proposed rule to temporarily suspend certain requirements of the rule. The BLM is also actively reviewing the underlying regulation for potential revision. • Unnecessarily lengthy NEPA reviews delay projects The NEPA process has added extra time and analysis to project completion, which adds to uncertainty for industry and higher costs for taxpayers. This is particularly true for Departmental actions that impact energy and infrastructure projects, such as resource management planning, permitting, and issuance of rights-of-way for pipeline projects and electricity transmission. 0 Actions: The Department has identified a number of rules and regulations to revise or rescind such as the Master Leasing Plans, the NEPA Compliance for Oil and Gas Lease Reinstatement Petitions, and the Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plans. In addition, the Deputy Secretary issued an August memo setting a deadline of one year and limiting EIS statements to 150 pages or 300 pages for unusually complex projects. • Holding energy producers hostage via Compensatory Mitigation (Secretarial Order 3330) Current compensatory mitigation policies have reduced predictability, created conflicts, and unnecessarily increased permitting/authorization timelines. Additionally, industry stakeholders believe the mitigation planning goal exceeds statutory authority. Currently, Interior and its bureaus lack a consistent terminology and framework for mitigation. 0 Action: Secretarial Order 3349: American Energy independence reexamined the use of mitigation policies and practices in order to better balance conservation strategies and job creation. Bureaus at the Interior will review various handbooks and manuals on the use of mitigation for energy and infrastructure projects. • Systematic delays in the leasing program and permitting process The long period from when acreage is first nominated to when those acres are offered at a lease sale, as well as delays between the lease sale date and when leases are awarded reduces industry certainty and hinders states from receiving their share of lease sale revenues. These delays have rendered industry less able to plan for and execute exploration and production strategies in a timely fashion, and less able to respond effectively to changing market conditions. 0 Action: Secretarial Order 3354 Supporting and improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Progm. Secretarial Order 3358 to form a permit expediting committee. In January 2017 there were 92 vacancies in key positions related to the permitting process. Since that time this SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_ 00002343-00003 administration has filled nearly half of those positions. The BLM is also modernizing the software used to track and coordinate permitting while seeking to add regional teams that will be able to greatly streamline the permitting process. So far this year the BLM has decreased their processing time for APDs by an average of 46 days. • Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is taken into consideration for both on- and offshore energy and infrastructure projects. It has far-reaching negative impacts on energy production and transmission as well as on critical infrastructure projects. ESA abuses have led to increased costs and delays on projects. 0 Action: Secretarial Order 3353: Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States Work with the Western Governors Association and other local partners to develop recommendations to improve the application of the ESA. Launch a review of ESA regulations and policy documents regarding outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, and inconsistently aligned with Executive and Secretarial Orders. The report also detailed extensive action taken to advance American Energy Dominance at the Department of the Interior, including, but not limited to: • Secretarial Order 3351: Strengthening the Department of the interior's Energy Portfolio • Secretarial Order 3352: National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska • Secretarial Order 3353: Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States • Reestablishing the Royalty Policy Committee to ensure the public continues to receive the full value of energy produced on federal lands. • Review, repeal, and rewriting of the following rules: the BSEE Well Control and BOP Rules, the ONRR Valuation Rule, and the OSMRE Stream Protection Rule. ### Update subscription II Unsubscribe This email was sent to Jason funes@ios,doLgov by: US, Department of the Interior II Help II Contact Us 1849 C Street. N,W, Washington DC 20240 202,208,3100 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002343-00004 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 12/3/2017 9:27:43 PM The Empire Strikes Back: Effort to debunk Christy & McNider http://www.dailymail.co. uk/ sciencetech/ article-513 3 897/Climate-skeptics-fire-new-paper .html Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org Support Heartland today! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002344-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 12/3/2017 9:16:23 PM This is what winning sounds like: Pruitt Brings State Action Tour To Iowa & Kentucky From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmail19.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 9:19 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Pruitt Brings State Action Tour To Iowa & Kentucky Pruitt Brings State Action Tour To Iowa And Kentucky Click li·lere Io Watch Administrator Pruitt's Interview On KCCl-rV Des Moines The Cedar Rapids Gazette reports that Administrator Pruitt wants to use our natural resources. "The new head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told an Iowa crowd Friday he will work with states when crafting environmental rules, and he criticized the Obama administration for doing the reverse. 'What's important for us in Washington, D.C., to do is to learn and partner and work with folks at the state level to achieve good outcomes together. That just simply has not happened for a number of years,' said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, during a stop in Nevada. Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general, also said the United States should use the natural resources it has, not 'put up fences' around them." The Des Moines Register reports Pruitt called farmers the first 'conservationists, environmentalists.' "Pruitt said the country needed to discuss what 'true environmentalism' means: 'We have been blessed with a bounty of natural resources. And some view that as 'We should simply not use them' - that we should put up fences and not use our natural resources. 'I don't buy that. We, as a country, have an obligation to feed the world and power the world,' he said, getting applause. 'When you have the natural resources like we do, we should use them to benefit our neighbors, our country and world."' The Quad-City Times reports that EPA is studying if E15 can be approved for year-round sale. "Pruitt, during his remarks at the Friday afternoon event near Nevada, said his agency is studying whether it has the legal standing to approve E15 for year-round sale. He said if it is determined the agency can do so without Congressional approval, it will make E15 available yearround. If not, Pruitt said he would make a recommendation to Congress to change the law." SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002345-00001 In Kentucky, WHASTV in Louisville reports that next year, Pruitt will have changes to Obama's WOTUS. "The head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency was in Louisville Thursday with a promise of change to one of the most controversial environmental regulations for Kentucky farmers. Administrator Scott Pruitt told the Kentucky Farm Bureau's 98th Annual Meeting that the "Waters of the United States" regulation will be changed forever by mid2018." Click li·lere Io Watch rt,e Video Finally, the West Kentucky Star reports that Pruitt denounced Obama's WOTUS. "Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt found a friendly audience in Kentucky as he lambasted an Obama-era clean-water rule. Pruitt told a Kentucky Farm Bureau audience on Thursday that the rule aimed at protecting small streams and wetlands from development and pollution was an example of federal overreach. He said the rule tried to redefine the Clean Water Act to cover puddles, dry creek beds and drainage ditches. President Donald Trump's environmental chief drew applause from the farm group as he said the rule is being 'fixed' and said a replacement rule is coming next year." TWEETS ... U.S. Enviromnentai Protection Agency '1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, D.C. 20004 Unsubscribe SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002345-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Sun 12/3/2017 7:22:29 PM Harris: Another great piece referencing the Houston conference h ://www.bdtonline.eom/o inion/columns/end-the-war-on-coal/article b5 I 7-60dca4b08b7c.html 0d83f2d0-e I 9 l-5d99- Here is the text: December 3, 2017: nd the 'war on coal' By Bryan Leland and Tom Harris At last week's Environmental Protection Agency public hearing on the withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan in Charleston, anti-coal activists were out in force. The meeting was swamped with activists - Climate Justice Alliance, Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, Natural Resources Defense Council, etc. Several groups also met at the University of Charleston, to discuss, according to the New York Times, the "environmental, health and climate benefits of reducing coal consumption." They apparently do not understand that the abundant, low-cost energy provided by coal laid the foundations of the industrial revolution and modern society. Low-cost energy provided continuous power for factories and trains that transported goods and raw materials. In the 20th century coal-fired power stations provided the reliable, inexpensive supply of electricity that is the lifeblood of our economy. The world still has huge resources of coal (the U.S. has a 381-year reserve at current SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002346-00001 usage rates) that could be burned in modern clean power stations. Sadly, in the Western world, environmentalists are working to shut down existing coal-fired stations, and prevent new ones from being built. Yet, hundreds of new coal-fired stations are being built in the rest of the world to power expanding economies. Developing countries must build new coal-fired stations to provide their poverty-stricken populations with reliable low-cost electricity. But environmentalists have convinced international development banks that coal is evil and persuaded the banks to squander vast sums on expensive solar power that keeps the home lights burning for a few hours every evening. So why is coal vilified? It is because of the mistaken belief that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing dangerous global warming, and coal stations are indeed a major source of CO2 emissions. This belief rests entirely on the output of computer models that are programmed to predict warming if CO2 increases. The models assume what they are supposed to prove! Speaking at the America First Energy Conference, on Nov. 9 in Houston, Texas, University of Delaware climatology professor Dr. David Legates showed that climate models consistently predict far greater temperature rises than are actually observed. He explained that models are "tuned" to give the results desired for political purposes. If it was true that man-made CO2 caused dangerous global warming, the best option would be nuclear power that is proven, safe, and environmentally friendly. But environmental extremists claim that nuclear power is too dangerous even though the only recorded deaths from nuclear power generation occurred at the obsolete and maloperated Chernobyl station in the Ukraine. The next best option is tracking for natural gas. This has been spectacularly successful in the U.S. and there is currently an abundant supply of gas from tracking. Yet, despite its excellent safety record, activists violently oppose tracking. Instead, activists push wind and solar power that only exist because they are heavily subsidized. Emissions regulations that block the construction of new efficient and clean coal-fired stations result in the need to extend the life of old, more polluting stations. So, the war against coal is also a war against a cleaner environment. It's time to end the war on coal. By Bryan Leyland, an Auckland, New Zealand-based consulting engineer and the founding secretary and energy issues adviser of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), and Tom Harris, executive director of ICSC. Tom SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002346-00002 Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.) Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) 28 Tiverton Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6L5 Canada 613- 728-9200 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002346-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 10/27/2017 2:59:46 PM Donn Dears on DOE's recommendation to FERC re grid reliability. Donn Dears has written an excellent piece on an important issue in the climate change and energy policy debates that doesn't get enough attention. While we debate how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere or the health effects of extremely low levels of PM-2.5, the other side is wiping out coal-fired generation and undermining the reliability of America's electric grid. Heartland is about to release a series of three policy studies on this issue. Keep an eye out for them, and write about it! Joe After the Endangerment Finding, how electricity is dispatched is one of the most important policy issues that needs to be addressed. My article today supports Secretary Perry's proposal and attempts to frame the issue so that more people can understand it. Here's the link to my article: Joe Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Phone 312/377-4000 Email jbast@heartland.org Web site http://www.heartland.org SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002347-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 0000234 7-00002 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 12/1/2017 10:28:06 PM Rupert Darwall's comments at CEI event Sorry to burden you with so many emails today, but this write-up of Rupert Darwall's talk at CEI earlier this week is really good. I share it with permission from Aaron Stover, Heartland's Wash DC guy. Have a great weekend! Decorate the tree! Joe From: Aaron Stover Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:13 PM To: Subject: FW: Cooler Heads Coalition: new climate science review paper by Rupert Darwall and two reminders Hello all, On Tuesday I attended a Hill briefing hosted by CEI featuring Rupert Darwall to speak about his new book Green Tyranny (he also distributed the paper cited below). Here is a brief summary of his remarks: •· Darwall had recently served as CEI's delegate at COP-23 in Bonn, Germany. He stated that Trump's Paris climate treaty withdrawal was enormously important, as the treaty was designed to have Obama avoid having to send it to the Senate for ratification. The climate change debate is a battle of the administrative state vs. constitutional order and freedom. • · The age of global warming was originally about nuclear energy, not wind and solar. It started as a political project for the Swedes in 1974 under Olof Palme, then Prime Minister. Sweden has been a model for the progressive Left in the U.S., as they've had a centralized party apparatus for centuries. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002348-00001 • · Darwall recommended the book The New Totalitarians by Roland Huntford on early 1970s Sweden. The country is known for its cradle-to-grave welfare system, and at one point had a state-sponsored eugenics program. •· During this period Sweden promoted anti-Americanism as state policy that was also reflected in student protests. The state aligned itself with the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, and Fidel Castro. • · Sweden pursued a war on coal to bring about nuclear power. Acid rain was an early environmental scare blamed on coal power, and the campaign served as a template for global warming. The head of the Swedish Meteorological Institute, Bert Bolin, wrote the first UN report on acid rain, which was very similar to future reports on global warming. •· Darwall turned to Germany, revealing that the German Nazis were the first party to champion wind energy, with Hitler calling it the energy of the future. • · In the 1960s West German Social Democrats radicalized the youth, and many student radicals in the 70s turned to terrorism, with hijackings, kidnappings, etc. They were alienated by West German society but found their way back in with the anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s. Darwall joked that "red and green were turning to brown," as they essentially adopted the Nazi ecological position. The Greens merged with the peace movement during this time. • · Greens also shared with Nazis the ideas of ecological utopia and a cult of the forest. The people on the wrong side of the Cold War however ended as the victors in German politics. German's Red-Green coalition won in 1998 and introduced the first renewable energy policy two years later. The highest feed-in tariffs went to the least efficient energy. Similar to Obamacare in the U.S., no legislators actually knew what was in the law. •· This was the start of Germany's Energiewende (energy transformation) that led to its destruction by the hand of the state through regulation and subsidies. This wasn't Schumpeter's "creative destruction" of the market, rather it was destructive destruction. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002348-00002 •· The Greens employed systematic deceit and propaganda, using empty phrases like "ecological equilibrium." Despite arguments to the contrary, environmental and economic policies are in conflict. • · Darwall noted how Fred Singer served on a Reagan-appointed panel on acid rain in the 1980s. George H.W. Bush's EPA suppressed the panel report that exposed the shoddy science on acid rain, and Singer also unmasked the nuclear winter scare. This was planted by the KGB as a Soviet disinformation scheme. Carl Sagan and Fred Singer took opposite sides on the possibility of a climate catastrophe due to burning oilfields in the first Gulf War. Nightline host Ted Koppel actually reported that Singer's skepticism proved right and Sagan was wrong. • · Global warming alarmism is in complete conflict with liberty as it has adopted a totalitarian approach. • · During Q&A Scott Walter of CRC asked about the economics of science funding. Darwall cited the climate industrial complex and multi-billion dollar foundations such as Pew and Rockefeller, who had their origins in successful U.S. entrepreneurs. This issue isn't going away, as they've poured billions into it and also have their reputations to protect. -Aaron From: Myron Ebell [mailto:Myron.Ebell@cei.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:16 AM To: Myron Ebell Subject: Cooler Heads Coalition: new climate science review paper by Rupert Darwall and two reminders CEI released a paper by Rupert Darwall this morning. Our news release is pasted below. Rupert will be speaking at a Cooler Heads Coalition briefing today, 28th November, at 4 PM in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building. Attendees will receive copies of Rupert's new book, Green Tyranny: Exposing the SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002348-00003 Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, compliments of CEI. The Cooler Heads Coalition will hold its December strategy meeting next Monday, 4th December, beginning at 12 noon, at CEI, 1310 L Street, N. W., Seventh Floor. Please e-mail or ring me at 331-2256 with agenda items or questions. New CEI Paper Asks: Where is the Scientific Debate in the Climate Debate? A Veneer of Certain Rupert Darwall Stokin Climate Alarm by The national discussion on climate change has escalated under the Trump administration, which makes it crucial to ensure that actual debate is happening regarding the science used to create policy and inform public opinion. A new paper from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, released today, highlights how open debate is key to improving the state of scientific knowledge and achieving sound policy outcomes. "Open debate in science is crucial," says report author Rupert Darwall. "Climate change policy advocates habitually make claims about the strength of the science that go far beyond what is warranted by the state of current scientific knowledge on the climate system. We need more debate in order to arrive at the best science possible. The red team/blue team approach is a good model to follow." Taking a lesson from the 2014 American Physical Society (APS) climate workshop, Darwall's paper suggests taking EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposal for red/blue team assessment as a means to encourage healthy scientific debate. Open debate was on display at the APS workshop, which took place in Brooklyn and lasted just over seven hours. A unique event in the annals of the climate debate, it featured three climate scientists who support the climate change consensus and three climate scientists who do not. That format required an unusual degree of honesty about the limitations of the current understanding of the climate system. For the most SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002348-00004 part, circumspection, qualification, and candid admissions of lack of knowledge were the order of the day. "Open debate is as crucial in science as it is in a democracy. Things are different when climate scientists are on the stand alongside their peers who know the science as well as they do, but disagree with the conclusions they draw from the same body of knowledge," explains Darwall. "The biggest winner from a red/blue team assessment will be the public. If people are to buy into policies that will drastically alter their way of life, they should be fully informed of the consequences and justifications." Instead of debating, highlighting and, where possible, resolving disagreement, many mainstream climate scientists work in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media to stoke fear about allegedly catastrophic climate change, providing a scientific imprimatur for an aggressive policy response while declining to air private doubts and the systematic uncertainties. You can find the paper, A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm, here. Myron Ebell Director, Center for Energy and Environment Competitive Enterprise Institute 1310 L Street, N. W., Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005, USA Tel direct: (202) 331-2256 Tel mobile: (202) 320-6685 E-mail: Myron.Ebell@cei.org Stop continental drift! SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002348-00005 SELC EPA, N0. (W.D. EPA-HQ-2017-010058 To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Abboud, Michael[abboud.michael@epa.gov] Konkus, John[konkus.john@epa.gov] Jim Lakely Wed 2/14/2018 12:10:40 AM RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Thanks, Michael and John. Much appreciated. Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst From: Abboud, Michael [mailto:abboud.michael@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:06 AM To: Jim Lakely Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City Hey Jim, you can have Isaac register at the link below. The time limit on comments is 5 minutes. I'll be in Kansas City, if you would like to connect Isaac with me I would love to meet him. h s://www.e a. 1 ov/stationa repealing-clean-power-plan -sources-air- -sess10n- If you have anyone attending the San Francisco or Gillette hearings you can have them register at this link below. h s://www.e a. ov/stationa -sources-air- ollution/listenin -sess10ns-re SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002349-00001 Michael Abboud U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Public Affairs M: 202-578-9013 From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakcl a hcartland.oro-] Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 6:05 PM To: Konkus, John Subject: Heartland at EPA Listening Session in Kansas City John, I hope you are doing well. Keep up the great work! I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that Heartland Research Fellow for Energy Policy Isaac Orr is going to be at the Kansas City Listening Session on February 21. Can you help us get him on the schedule for offering comments? If that can happen, what's the ideal length of such a comment? Best, Jim Lakely Director of Communications The Heartland Institute 3939 North Wilke Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002349-00002 o: 312.377.4000 c: 312-731-9364 Twitter: @Heartlandlnst SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002349-00003 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 12/1/2017 9:05:34 PM Interesting article on the Democrats climate dilemma This will be posted on Heartland's blog, The Freedom Pub, shortly, but I figured I would share it with you first. Joe Why Democrats Lose on Global Warming By Joseph Bast, CEO, The Heartland Institute 12/1/2017 Robinson Meyer's November 15 article for The Atlantic, titled "Democrats Are Shockingly Unprepared to Fight Climate Change," is an important article because it accurately reports some of the history of the debate over global warming in the United States. For example, Myer writes: In June 2009, Waxman-Markey passed the House. But as that summer wore on, the bill's prospects floundered. By August, the Tea Party rose to command more media attention, and public opinion turned against Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid-focused on passing what would become the Affordable Care Act-declined to take the climate bill to the Senate floor. By the middle of the next summer, Waxman-Markey was effectively dead. Only a few years after it opened, the window to pass climate legislation had already shut. Meyer's account doesn't explain why the Tea Party adopted global warming skepticism, why "public opinion turned against Democrats," and why members of the Senate convinced Reid to call off a vote on Waxman-Markey. The Heartland Institute and one man, Arthur Robinson, played major roles in all three developments. Starting in 2007, Heartland began distributing what would eventually be millions of copies of SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002350-00001 books, brochures, and videos explaining why man-made climate change was not a crisis. It ran over $1 million in ads challenging Al Gore to debate his critics. (Gore never did.) Heartland focused much of its efforts on the nascent Tea Party movement, providing its leaders with free publications, speakers, and other types of support. In 2009, Art Robinson was going from office to office in the Russell Senate Office Building handing out and discussing a hefty directory of signers of the Petition Project, some 31,000 scientists opposed to legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He met with senators and their senior staff and patiently explained how the left had hijacked the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and EPA. A brilliant scientist and disarming communicator, Robinson converted scores of people. Meanwhile, Heartland's Sandy Liddy Bourne, often accompanied by others from Heartland or allies from Americans for Tax Reform, was going door to door in the Senate with copies of the first volume in the Chmate Change Recons;dered series. Senate staff have told us repeatedly that this publication plus Robinson's directory of scientists, delivered at exactly the right moment, made a big difference in Senate deliberations. No other nonprofit group or individual was so successful in opposing Waxman-Markey. Meyer also reports, Even in defeat, Waxman-Markey cost the party dearly. More than two dozen congressional Democrats who had supported the cap-and-trade bill lost in the 2010 midterm election. The casualties included Rick Boucher, a 14-term veteran of Congress whose district included much of southwest Virginia's coal country. Boucher had negotiated concessions for local coal companies into Waxman-Markey, but this could not save his seat. Ten House Democrats, including Boucher, voted for Waxman-Markey and against the Affordable Care Act. Six of them lost their seats in 2010. This is the history many members of Congress remember and newcomers need to be reminded of: The last time global warming came up in Congress, in 2010, most of the members who voted for it lost their next elections. Later in the article, writing about Democrats' current climate change efforts in Congress, Meyer SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002350-00002 writes, There are only two bills that come close to serving as a flagship bill. The first is the 100 _by'50 Act, released in April by Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "100 by '50" is an ambitious economic-planning package that would require 100 percent of American electricity to come from clean or renewable energy by 2050. The bill's release was timed to the People's Climate March in Washington, D.C., and McKibben attended its unveiling. It represents the triumph of the 350.org wing of the environmental movement, blocking future fossil-fuel investment and directing plenty of funding to help historically at-risk and marginalized communities. But the 100 by '50 Act debuted to a fizzle and Sanders, its more prominent cosponsor, spends little time discussing it publicly. Yup, that's what happened. They thought by tying this legislation to the People's Climate March, it would get a big media bump and political momentum. But the march was quickly identified with the emerging "resistance" movement, with meaningless and sometimes violent protests, and with identity politics gone wild. It mobilized the 20% hard-left anti-Trump base but turned off the other 80% of Americans. The bill got little attention and was quickly forgotten. Meyer makes a rare admission by a MSM liberal writer: ...Democratic voters still don't care about climate change very much. Like other Americans, most of the party's electorate experience it as a "low-intensity" issue. Though a rntloritvof "--'-"-~--,~-,~--~--~--,:-.1-~,=~-believe in climate change, very few people use climate policy to decide whom to vote for. Even Democrats say that a candidate's proposed climate policy_ ----------\vhcumakin1z a votiDg decision than his or her proposed policies about jobs, health care, the economy, education, income inequality, and terrorism. This is true about Democrats, but not about Republicans. Climate change is not a "low-intensity" issue for Republican voters because they rank it low on lists of "major problems facing the country." Just listen to the crowd reactions whenever Trump talks about "energy abundance" and his pro-energy, pro-environment, and pro-jobs agenda. By ranking climate change low on their list of problems facing the country, Republican voters are telling pollsters they want less dramatically less - action on global warming than what politicians have given them in the past. They are practically shouting "Stop doing this!!" And the MSM' s take on this is to say it's a "low intensity issue." Who's the "denier" now? SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002350-00003 This is another rare and honest admission: If Democrats win unified control of Congress and the White House in, say, 2020, history suggests they will get a sliver of time to commit any kind of new policy to statute before public opinion turns against them. During that window, dozens of issues will compete for law makers' attention. Democrats, Meyer is saying, can win if they exaggerate and pander to public ignorance on issues like health care and global warming, but once elected and their "solutions" to the fake problems are put on the table, they immediately start to lose public support. Maybe if they were honest during their campaigns, and then did what they promised they would do, their "window" would be more than a "sliver of time." Trump's window, for example, is four years wide, maybe eight. Just sayin'. Near the end of his article, Meyer writes, There is, as far as I could find, no think tank putting a bill [on climate change] together or thinking through legislative language. I could barely find professional Democrats planning how a future offensive on the issue would look. Of course! This is what you would expect if Democrats were merely using fear of catastrophic climate change to get the support of low-information voters, and had no interest in genuinely addressing what they knew to be a fake problem. This is Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark. It's a damning admission of insincerity on the part of liberals. Pity that more people aren't paying attention. This last admission by Meyer reminds me as well of a scene near the end of Michael Crichton's terrific novel '-"--'--"''-'--"'--~----"'--"'-"-where environmental activists are shutting down their offices and moving on to some other issue they can exploit, even before the public realizes it was all just a scam. For the environmentalists in State of Fear, It was never about science or truth or even protecting the environment, only power and keeping a job. And so it is today with the Democratic Party and its -'--'--'--"""'--J....--"--'--'"-'--"--"~== and stenographers in the legacy media. SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002350-00004 ### Joseph Bast is chief executive officer of The Heartland Institute. He can be reached at SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002350-00005 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Thur 10/26/2017 8:35:01 PM FW: Coal future published From Roger Bezdek: Joe From: Roger Bezdek [mailto:rbezdek@misi-net.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:03 PM To: Joseph Bast; 'Tim Huelskamp (Gmail)'; Jim Lakely Subject: Coal future published Part 2 of the MISI coal jobs study is published in the current issue of the Public Utilities Fortnightly, "Death of U.S. Coal Industry Greatly Exaggerated." A copy is attached; the link is http://misi-net.com/pub1ications/PUF2.0Midl 017.pdf. Dr. Roger H. Bezdek, President Management Information Services, Inc. rbezdek(£ misi-net.com 703-620-4120 SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_001389A_00002352-00001 From: Sent: Subject: Joseph Bast Fri 12/1/2017 8:47:45 PM Christy and McNider's new study h s://www.investors.com/ olitics/editorials/anothcr- 1 lobal-warmin -stud -casts-doubt-onmedias-climatc-change-fai y-tale/ Still more proof that there's been no significant warming (less than .1 degree C/decade) since satellite data became available in 1979. Compare the bottom (purple) line in this graph, -TLT•SST lffl 1Nl 111$ tM 1111 19M ,..., 2000 20D JOl)f 280I 20U 201s JDU 11,,,'\'.,ftt H', ..,..,,,~ tM>•ft.4lt tt-J'.'t" .... 11.tM ..••t> f"'\"'-·¥~l•P~f'<"lll"•f .. ,:,.-.•J>f;«t'_...1 M~_.,,,.\,,.,1,h1 (ff••J:! ""H,IJ"4t.1, •!I t,,.,.,.~N•'rl' \11o-c•, , .. , u,t • u .,1 •"fih,t-t,, 1111 •~•'-' •1t1,11J,( h,.t..-••t•o •·•'• "i'\.t J,M\.l"•I ~• •M f'f'l'.-~.n•tHtJt u 1t(A,,;tA ~• ,..-itl~l ❖1. ♦ .... .......... ltl!W ( •~0'1''-•h .•• .u ...,.,........ , ... , .., ...,.,11,..,i~U l\f \r,'ld Hrt,.,t,) l'Ul,i, 1'1'• f'flt-l!"<(h M ........... tito k••- ~.._ ,f4"• ti'""-{« .. 1,,,.,._«.,-11, M ,-.-. \'I<._,~'"°'.,_ f">'\#hit. •'M+•:~"l'• H l 'l,"(h .•• ,.,,..,,....., .. ~... '( tt ... ".,.,.,,, ......... t,J.fli( ,.,.,..~••··•· tkt: l~ ti+it l"f••r,.,........... .. •.t·••""tt•••t ··••t•·•....,,. .,, ..,..._.1"t'I 1,....,. ..._~,,_,•,,. ,•!'.'\•1'1-.._y •"'-'• ,,,\~••'• ,.~,,,t... ..,.,•••"'If'w,., , ,. ~.,'•""'-"""'' t• .......... .'\,l ... ·"'·••h.-6 ,.r.,..,.,,.. •• ,,.1 ... to the silly graph presented just a couple days ago by USA Today's Sammy "Big Hair'' Roth: SELC v EPA, No. 3:18-cv-18 (W.D. Va.); EPA-HQ-2017-010058 ED_ 001389A_ 00002353-00001 _,____________ ____ _ , Global average temperatures since 1880, when compared to the long-term average. I J. ·11 t:;(l\JF,.!(' liit'itrttt"lo f. 0 /'1""..Jlf•• 1iot~'#1.('. tM . ! .. ~;i,p4fi(:,.t+ Rll·f;.,,ot ( f'•d~H,t/Urecardsta:k up? A 'ted deck. As usual,conven- m2'.l tional .,d:lom is wrong. There is a hl..g:l 1) iml:Elancein federalincenti\€5for the oil o.____ .,...__.__ andga:;industry,comparedto renewables. 01 HO\l\e\€r, the iml:Elance isstronglyin favor of rene.JVa)lesand it is incrS:Singrapidly. In Fig. 2. Federal Incentives for a recentlypublishedstudy,v,.e found that gas compared to solar, wind, overthe pestseveralyears,the iml:Elance 2011-2016. of sutsidies in favor of renewables over ID~---------~ other energy technologiesha:; ta:::orre iD overwhelming (http://misi-net.com/ ~ ID pub Iicat ions/ EnergyI ncent ives-0517. :gs:i pdf). This clearlycontradictsthe contention thatfederalincenti\€Sfavoroil andga:; J) at theexpense of rerl6.l\/cDles. As shown in Fig. 1, during the years ~3) 2011-2016, renewable energy (rolar, 10 0 wind, biom:ss, geothermaland hydro) ha:;received$89 bi11ion in federalincentives,which is: 1: E: ~'° i oil and natural and biomass, is not supposedto be includedin federal sutsidiesfor "renewableenergy." Aa:x>rdingly,Fig.2excludesfederalsupport for hydroandgeothermal, andshOVIS onlysutsidiesfor rolar,wind andbioma:s. Thesefiguresshowthat during the 20112016period,theserenewabletechnologies received$78billion,which is: • Morethan threetirn="'• ;CJeral incenti\€5· . ,u natural gEE,rombira:i. • •-~"' than five \ a:; murt--• i- ,ti\€ScE. • Nea1 incent1 Over the thesethree re giesreceived' ,centi\€5? tim:s .,,1 rederal for nat :S. 2011 gh 2016, tbleene x;hnolotim:s a:;1 .• federal natural ga:;,coal, and ed. Thus, even excludc1r1d geothermal,reneV1.0bles are being sutsidized about three tim:s a:; heavilya:;alI fossiI fuels and nuclear energy,combined. Notably,energytechnologiesprovide very different contributions to the U.S. energymix. Oil andga:;provideover61% of U.S.energyneeds,whereaswind and solarprovidelessthan3%.Thus,per unit of energy,renewables arema:sivelyoversutsidized,comparedto oi I andgas. The bottomline.So, what doesall of this rrean?Doesit imply that the oil and ga:; industry recei\€5too much federal support?Too Iittle?Doesit imply that renewableindustriesreceivetoo muchfederalsupport?Or do they receivetoo Iittle? The informationprovidedhereimplies noneof this.The "optimal"le.relof federal supportisaniffiuevi.elloutsidethes:x:>peof thiscolumn.Neverthele:s, the information presentedhereis importantto rerrember, whenv,.e hearthat renewable energyis being "starved"of federalfundingcompared to theoil andga:;industry.llm 1 S9:RRnm3:E